In the documentary
film, Hazardous Waste From Subic and Clark, it is
difficult to pinpoint who is to blame for the mess. All that the film project
wanted to do was let the US Military accept the responsibility of cleaning up. The
situation is a maze of tangled web: An agreement for use of the Philippine military
bases for 99 years; the rented bases used for war purposes; the inherent health
hazards inflicted on workers; and when those renting left, the hazardous waste.
Here, we have a
lot of people talking from the interviews, but notice the communication
behavior. Each one talks from a different hat but mostly from the corporate
self. When the corporate self is used to decide instead of the personal self,
it is a bigger one such as a nation or group and the person appears excused or
protected from his act. But is he?
The Treaty (Use of
Military Bases in the Philippines) is inadequate as described by American
environmentalists. It does not require
them anything about hazardous wastes – nor anything about cleaning them up, for
that matter. This is as far as American environmentalists are concerned - as if
that would exonerate the American soldiers.
Norton Smith
interpreted the role of the Army. To him, a soldier is a soldier is a soldier.
There is the imperative of carrying out orders dutifully without asking questions.
No one said about cleaning up. Horseshit, he said. The American soldiers were
saying they were soldiers, and asking questions was out of context.
Meanwhile, the
United States representatives in the documentary film avoided the issue. They
were not answering the question. Norton Smith, for example, was comparing Dirty
Manila with Clean Subic – which was not the issue.
The Filipinos (interviewer,
worker victims, and witnesses) were talking about what was happening (practice).
In contrast, the Americans were talking about what should have happened
(theory).
Moreover, there
was disconnection between experiences of those in the field and of those who
made the policies.
One word that
stands out here is RENTAL. There is something wrong in fighting for one’s
country if one rents a place to do it and then leave it dirty. But then leaving
a rented place dirty is inevitable if the time span is several decades long –
not to mention one year short of a century – and the nature of the activity is
military. The control is loose and in this regard, it is initially the
Philippines to be faulted. Can you consider that?
By the nature of
the activity involved, it (the accumulation of hazardous waste) could not be hidden
from the Filipinos. Logic would tell a normal, thinking individual that if
indeed, there were to be modern arms, Filipinos would not be told. Neither
would they be told that hazardous waste could accumulate – if the Americans knew.
RENTAL. The owner
of the place is expected to know what he was getting into. Caveat emptor! Much
like in a buyer-seller relationship, there was no guarantee that use of the
bases would not leave harm, specifically that much environmental harm. Living
in this world requires one to be wise – discerning in all his ways.
And then came the
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA). Though the use of the bases was not included,
Filipinos never really learn. The activity is again military, take note.
What about the
corporate self? The context of mouthing one’s opinion is different from that of
one heading the nation. Just like Joseph Estrada, the Vice President then. He
opposed vehemently the extension of the rental of the Philippine military bases
to the United States. There was a movie in which he starred to mark his opinion.
When he became President, he was for VFA. The configuration of his decision-making
changed. Whatever he opined, he knew he had to put out one for his corporate
self – regardless of what he believed in personally. Most of the time he had to
reconcile his two selves: the corporate and the personal. As President then, he
had to serve what was politically correct at the moment. Judging him,
therefore, has to consider all these things. Judging also the US Military has
to be in the same vein.
The individuals in
the US Military also have two selves: a personal and a corporate one. As they
take their oath on Day 1 as member of the Armed Forced, they have to leave
their individual (civilian) selves to be able to serve the state well. In the
Armed Forces, the state and its needs stand above all. The soldiers are not to
question orders: they have to obey first.
The by-products of
what the Armed Forces do is not a different story altogether. They do not have any
control over what they do. Command responsibility falls on the
commander-in-chief, the President of the United States. And he may be faulted
for these toxic wastes the soldiers left behind. However, this is partly the
doing of Philippine leaders before: granting rental without controls, which
time is even beyond the normal lifetime of one individual. It is a conjoint responsibility
of everyone, yet done without a voluntary will.
Why the corporate
self is often coming in to express itself in this issue is on account of the fact
that this does not involve simply drawing the line between what is true and
what is false. The soldier will not be judged for himself alone. It will be
considered that he is under oath. The President will not be judged for himself
alone. It will be considered that he represents a nation. The Philippines as
renter – though probably a stupid renter - and its victims? They won’t be
judged as such. They will have mercy – and that mercy is well-deserved.
Everyone is
morally-bound to a higher power than the state. When that higher power asks one
to account for one’s deeds (which everyone soon will be subjected to), the
attribute of the country (powerful or not) will not be there. The corporate
self will not be there.
___________
"Toxic Sunset: On the Trail of Hazardous Waste From Subic and Clark" is an award winning 28-minute documentary by investigative journalists Benjamin Pimentel and Louella Lasola (1992) on environmental problems at Subic Naval Base and Clark Air Base in the Philippines. The 1947 Military Bases Agreement granted the US use of these base lands for 99 years. When the US withdrew, it left behind toxic and hazardous wastes.
No comments:
Post a Comment