One might expect that the United States would have declined the offer, or that the offer would have been withdrawn by the Philippine government after discussions revealed the tremendous expense involved. A message from the U.S. State Department to the embassies in Saigon, Seoul, Manila and Taipei, declassified in 1973, provided information concerning civilian and military assistance from other countries to Vietnam: ‘As general principle donor countries will be strongly urged to meet as much of cost of their aid as possible, particularly expenses within donor countries and transport. U.S. will be prepared on case by base basis to consider financing these costs or portion thereof, if necessary to prevent aid offer from being withdrawn. However such payment would not be made to point where project loses donor identity and result appears to be no more than U.S. employment of third country nationals or in the case of military personnel, mercenaries.’

Subscribe Today

• Did you enjoy our article?
• Read more in Vietnam Magazine
• Subscribe online and save nearly 40%!!!
 

The deputy chief of mission eventually revealed that the total amount of equipment supplied represented 10 engineer construction battalions, five of which had been first mentioned in the joint Marcos-Johnson communiqué. Three of these were service-funded, and two more were to be funded through MAP. Five were added at a later date.

The Filipino view of what Senator Fulbright termed ‘the ultimate in corruption’ shows the quandary in which developing nations all too often find themselves, being unable to separate the need for assistance from international obligations, as well as the extent to which pragmatism may be confused with cupidity, at home and abroad. Ocampo said: ‘It is obvious that the main factor behind the administration’s drive to send troops to South Vietnam, which President Marcos says he ‘cannot reveal in a public manner,’ is the promise of the United States to send economic aid to this country in exchange for our sending troops to South Vietnam.

‘The President’s silence on this score can only be met with sympathetic understanding by Members of this Chamber. No President could reveal the brutal truth that in order to get the wherewithal for a program of development with which to achieve a successful Administration, this country must send Filipinos to die in South Vietnam. No matter how the spokesmen of Mr. Marcos try to cover up…the truth remains that the overriding factor which motivates the Marcos Administration…is the promise of American aid.’

Congressman Jose L. Briones admonished his colleagues to shun ‘horse-trading.’ He said: ‘I wish to reiterate my unwavering stand against an alleged scheme of Malacañan [the Philippine presidential residence] to buy Liberal votes in favor of this measure with pork-barrel funds. All these talks of material considerations and dollar windfalls, new military equipment, war trade bonanzas and pork-barrel funds–behind the Vietnam aid bills are deplorable. If we must go to South Vietnam to help stem the tide of communist aggression and defend our security and freedom, let us do so without being coerced or pressured, without being bought or purchased.’

Naturally, rumors flew thick and fast, together with accusations of opportunism. In the column ‘Over a Cup of Coffee,’ by Teodoro F. Valencia of the Manila Times, a fairly common view of the congressional debate was expressed. ‘Politics is a practical game of give and take. The President will pay heavily for every vote he will get on his Vietnam aid bill. There will be appointments and promotions to consider. [T]he harder the opposition makes it, the harder a bargain [they] will be able to drive.’ Congresswoman Salud Vivaro Parreño pointed out that the Manila Times was claiming that ‘the Liberals have taken a favorable consideration in the next fiscal year….I am upholding the stand of the Chief Executive whether or not he has brainwashed any one of us, which I deny.’ Her declaration must have seemed somewhat reminiscent of a man coughing and waving his arms in smoke, while denying the presence of a fire.

Help HistoryNet by bookmarking to