Talk:Philippines–United States relations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tambayan Philippines High‑importance

	Philippines portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

United States Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Major non-NATO ally#Named by George W. Bush|major non-NATO ally]] The anchor (#Named by George W. Bush) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled[edit]

I placed the POV tag when creating the article because it is pasted from a US government website. Because this comes from a US govt source it may not be neutral, but I don't have the expertise to judge. (Hopefully others that know more will simply remove the tag if they think the article looks okay.) Mangostar (talk) 01:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article clearly is not neutral, and needs editing. It glosses over certain negative issues such as the Philippine Senate rejecting an extension of the Military Bases Agreement. There was growing resentment(and questionable constitutionality) of that agreement at that time. I think this article just paints a rosey picture without providing much in the way of facts.

Ealpert (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in this article is factually accurate. The absence of criticism doesn't invalidate the info of the article or makes it "factless".

--85.220.69.85 (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While factual, the article should be re-written for content, structure and POV. Military Base closure should be a minor subtopic, as this topic is now very dated, and should be viewed in perspective of vast US domestic and global military base closures which Philippines is a very minor segment. POV of article suggests base closure was damaging to US - Philipines relations? A broader perspective should include impact of base closure on local economy and military defense capablities of Philippines against regional agressors absent pre-positioned US assets. Clearly, the main focus of this topic should be analysis of current economic development, trade and tourism. (and not historic military leases). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred4justice (talk • contribs) 07:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Maybe instead the article can link to History of Clark Air Base or a separate article just on the 1991 bases agreement. --Bruce Hall (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can the loss of bases under Bush be dated when Obama is getting back in there now? Without the historical context of miserable failure how is the reader to judge the latest changes? Hcobb (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The loss of the bases under Bush the elder can be spoken of as "dated" because it occurred about a decade ago -- in 1991/92.

"Obama getting back in there now" is an oversimplification and a distortion. Article XVIII of the 1987 Philippine constitution is still in effect. Section 25 of that article reads, "Section 25. After the expiration in 1991 of the Agreement between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States of America concerning military bases, 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 the Congress so requires, ratified by a majority of the votes cast by the people in a national referendum held for that purpose, and recognized as a treaty by the other contracting State." The U.S. troops currently in the Philippines, mainly in connection with Operation Enduring Freedom – Philippines (OEF-P), are there under the umbrella of Article II of the 1951 US-RP Mutual Defense Treaty which reads, "In order more effectively to achieve the objective of this Treaty, the Parties separately and jointly by self-help and mutual aid will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack." Those US and RP troops are working together in OEF-P in exercises in order to "... develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack" -- or at least that is the official reason for the presence of those US troops in the Philippines (that may or may not be a convenient fiction recognized as fact by the US and RP governments, but that'll be the official reason given). Any use of the former Clark Air Base and/or other facilities in aid of OEF-P activities would be under that same umbrella. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine–American War[edit]

How can there be nothing here about the war between the nations and the Commonwealth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.83.5 (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, please expand on this and the Philippines-American relations from 1902 to 1946. It will make the neutrality of the topic better, because the page makes it look like we've always been on good terms with them. Yuumeko (talk) 22:36, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article's lead sentence reads, "Philippines – United States relations are bilateral relations between the Republic of the Philippines and the United States." The Republic of the Philippines did not exist until July 4, 1946. Perhaps the words the Republic of should be removed there, bringing this article's lead more into line with e.g., the Philippines–Spain relations and Mexico–Philippines relations articles. However, I note that the focus of those articles contrasts with the focus of e.g., the China–Philippines relations, Malaysia–Philippines relations articles. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - we could have a section on the Philippine American war, with a brief synopsis, and a "For more, see Philippine American war" - Notthebestusername (talk) 10:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NYT resource[edit]

Manila Negotiates Broader Military Ties With U.S. by John H. Cushman Jr. and Floyd Whaley, published January 26, 2012. 99.190.87.151 (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. use of Clark and Subic[edit]

I want to explain this edit.

The initial sentence of the edited paragraph read "In response to the growing threat of Chinese military precence [sic. (sp)] and territorial claims in the Spratly Islands, the Philippine government agreed to re-open Clark Air Base and U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay to the US Military." supported by a dead-link cite of [1]. I did a google search for clark subic military spratly site:philstar.com without finding a hit on a recent Philstar article with all those terms. The article did, however, hit a 2012 article headlined US troops can use Clark, Subic bases which does not mention the Spratlys. I rewrote the initial sentence, not mentioning the Spratlys, and cited that 2012 article.
The second sentence read, "Foreign Secretary Albert del Rosario said that this would be in line with treaty ties and not a violation of the Constitution, as the Philippines would retain control of the bases.", citing this Inquirer article in support. I've reworded that to clarify that what Rosario said was that the establishment of a US military facility could only be allowed if it would be under the control of the Philippine military.

Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

I suggest making and including a section talking about issues that hound the relations of the US and Philippine governments, though when I finish gathering up sources, I may be able to take the initiative. Examples of general and specific issues that hounded or currently hound the two countries relations are the still persistent Colonial Mentality of Filipinos (explaining why most of the Filipinos view the Americans positively if polls are to be believed and the low self-esteem of the Filipino masses on their own ability to stand up for themselves without being propped up by Americans), Parity Rights and Military Bases Treaties of 1947, Visiting Forces Agreement, Human rights violations by American military personnel in Mindanao and Subic, the overdependence of the Filipino economy on the United States (and how it is harmful to the interests of the Filipino people), and the tendency of the Philippines to become a sycophant of the US. Also, time permitting, I would be able to add the 1899 Philippine-American War and the results of American Colonization of the country in the context of the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Christian B. Yang-ed (talk • contribs) 11:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

The order of the nations stated under the map at the top of the entry should be switched with the US on the left and the Philippines on the right to match the map. Piguy101 (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Language balance[edit]

I add Filipino Language or Tagalog on the title to have a Neutral and Balance point of view the English (American's) and Filipino. (Just what in the Textbook was written on Philippines).

Duterte[edit]

I think, if I'm not wrong, the article should be edited to reflect the new Philippines' president Duterte on US relations, since he and his government are leaning more towards relations with China. US relations appear to becoming stale.

Time "Philippine President Duterte’s Bold Move on China Spells Trouble Ahead" Al Jazeera "The Philippines' Duterte inches away from US and closer to China" Reuters "Philippine President Duterte announces 'separation' from United States" Eck (talk) 11:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the relationships have changed so much since Duterte took over that the article should reflect on this better rather than what the relationships use to be. Inter&anthro (talk) 19:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional Government of the Republic of the Philippines (1986)[edit]

Here, I've reverted the unexplained removal of "Provisional Government of the Republic of the Philippines (1986) (1986–1987)" from the list of governments in the "Post–Colonial Period (1946–present)" portion of the "Predecessor States" list in the article. It seems clear to me that this belongs in the list. Please discuss here if needed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The map is wrong[edit]

i reverted the original image of the map but i have no idea how to change the map file with this template. Please fix Erri Oldharwe (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you fixed the image, you likely just need to refresh your cache. CMD (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]