Comparable to the United States, no. We are 200 years out of colonialism, they are 53 years out; comparable would be a bit much to expect. But progress in that direction has been consistently blocked, by us, for our own purposes.
Let's put this in concrete terms. From about 1979 to 1983; the IMF maintained a positive credit rating on the Philippines, despite knowing full well that the economy was in ruins and the money being borrowed was being sucked off by Marcos and the cronies. Private companies - owned by cronies - would get a loan guarantee from Marcos, which because of the positive IMF rating was effective as collateral, take that to a foreign bank, borrow a few tens of millions, split with Ferdinand, and take the dough to Switzerland. The IMF kept the pipeline open under direct American pressure: the US, acting under the Kirkpatrick Doctrine, believed that Marcos had to be kept in power because Jeanne said that the only alternative to dictatorship - for brown people - is communism. The pork barrel was empty, without the pork barrel Marcos would fall, so he had to be allowed to borrow.
So our government used our bank accounts to subsidize a dictator. Many dictators actually, but let's keep it simple. The question: when Marcos fell and the communists didn't take over, did we have the right to go back and demand that the Filipino taxpayers cough up every dollar we spent to oppress them?
Bear in mind that 60% of the national budget of the Philippines goes to debt service. |
