435. Memorandum Prepared in the Office of Southwest Pacific Affairs1
PHILIPPINES: MILITARY BASE TALKS
At the request of the Philippine Government we began exploratory talks with it in Manila last November 12 to determine whether there was a basis for agreement on revision of the 1947 Military Bases Agreement. We acceded to the Philippine request that Ambassador [Page 918] Bohlen and Secretary Serrano should first take up the question of criminal jurisdiction over American service personnel. In preparation for this the Philippines agreed that if an impasse were reached on criminal jurisdiction the negotiators would move to other subjects such as consultation on the war-time use of our bases, land acquisitions and relinquishments, etc. An impasse was in fact reached as long ago as last December but despite his earlier agreement, Serrano has repeatedly stated that it would not be feasible to leave the jurisdiction question until agreement is reached, at least in principle.
Ambassador Bohlen has attempted, in accordance with instructions, to obtain Philippine agreement to jurisdictional arrangements patterned on our arrangements with our NATO allies and Japan. For a number of reasons, however, related to the Philippine political situation and Serrano’s own pre-conceived notions, the prospects for reaching an agreement on this basis are virtually nil. The Ambassador has been negotiating, therefore, in accordance with his alternative instructions which are based on a modification of the final position of the 1956 Philippine negotiating panel. This formula would shift the basic criterion for apportioning court jurisdiction from the present basis of the locality of the offense (i.e., whether on-base or off-base), to one based on the duty status of the offender at the time of the offense. However, it would continue the present arrangement under which in off-base offenses the Philippine authorities alone determine whether a man was on duty or not. On base, the determination of duty would be made by the U.S. commanding officer. In either case, we have proposed that in cases of disputed determinations the final decision be taken only by the responsible authorities after intergovernmental consultation through diplomatic channels.
Within this framework the Ambassador has been attempting to close the gap of difference with Serrano on (1) jurisdiction over offenses committed by U.S. military dependents and civilian employees against Philippine nationals; (2) U.S. right to consultations with the Philippine Government prior to final determination of duty status by that government in off-base offenses; (3) definition of official duty (we favor the language in our NATO agreements but Serrano has insisted on keeping the present MBA language, with possibly slight modification); and (4) arrangements regarding waiver of jurisdiction (the Philippine offer has so far been too restrictive; it falls short of what we consider to be our minimum requirements).
The present situation is highly fluid, and the outcome of the talks is uncertain. The prospects for an agreement have been further confused [Page 919] by the introduction in the Philippine Senate of a resolution2 calling for arrangements which go far beyond our arrangements with the NATO countries and Japan and are therefore completely unacceptable to us. Ambassador Bohlen’s last meeting with Serrano on March 31 was inconclusive; Serrano gave the impression of being uninterested in reaching an agreement at this time. Ambassador Bohlen does not expect that another meeting will be held until sometime after April 20.
- Source: Department of State, SPA Files: Lot 67 D 279, 4–A5, Negotiations, Jurisdiction. Secret. Drafted by Brand and Tanguy.↩
- This resolution, supported by many of the most important Philippine senators, called for a revision of the Military Bases Agreement with the United States. The full text was transmitted in telegram 2988 from Manila, March 22. (Ibid., Central Files, 711.56396/3–2259)↩