(3 of 4)
Your article "Bitter Battle over Bases" [Oct. 9] subtly suggests a shakedown by the Marcos government in the current negotiations over U.S. military installations in the Philippines.
Instead of underlining issues such as Manila's demands for a Filipino base commander, local court jurisdiction over U.S. personnel accused of crimes against Filipinos and, certainly, the not small matter of rent (why should the bases be rent free?), TIME obfuscated the Philippine position by delving into how much money is being infused into the Philippine economy by whore-patronizing American sailors. Prostitution is a problem that knows no national boundaries and indeed, like journalism, is one of the world's oldest professions.
Alejandro del Rosario, Press & Information Officer, Philippine Consulate New York City
Poverty in the Philippines has fostered the feeling that "the Americans have so much, we should have some too." As a result, Olongapo has the brutal reputation of the most dangerous liberty port in the Pacific. Dependent families are scared to leave the base. The facilities you mentioned are their only recreation.
How ironic that we are withdrawing from South Korea where we are truly welcomed and appreciated and contemplate paying $1 billion to stay and be abused in the Philippines.
(CT13) Larry E. Vecera, U.S.A. Austin, Texas
The attitude toward the U.S. exhibited by the Philippines exemplifies that of harlots. They can't stand you, but they'll take your money.
Ginette T. Hochman
Ewing Township, N.J.
If there is anti-American feeling building in the Philippines, we have only one place to put the blame: on ourselves.
True, the 1947 U.S.-Philippine agreement stipulated that the bases were to be rent free, but it also included an under standing of military assistance and protection for the Philippines, which was later gutted by the Nixon Doctrine (Guam, 1969). Is it any wonder, there fore, that the attitude of the Philippine government now is, "If you want to main tain bases here, pay rent for them!"?
It's time to stop our "Ugly-American Diplomacy" before we lose our most loy al anti-Communist ally.
Martin Kantoff
San Mateo, Calif.
Diplomatic Immunity
The new law requiring diplomatic personnel in this country to have liability insurance is fine [Oct. 16] as far as it goes, but what does it do to indemnify American citizens who have been killed, injured or financially ruined before the law takes effect?
It is the duty of the U.S. Government to indemnify its citizens fully for the amount of their pain, suffering, financial loss and legal expenses. No government worth its salt can fail to protect its citizens' rights in cases where there are disputes with foreigners.
Alan W. Raymond
Pleasantville, N. Y.
Less immune, my foot! I agree with President Carter's decision to sign the bill that will grant only ambassadors, attaches and other high-ranking embassy officials and their families total immunity, but I still think this part of the diplomatic community has too much freedom. Why should a foreign diplomat in the U.S. be free to do things that a citizen of the U.S. cannot do?
Raymond Labadie
Pittsburgh
Man, the Cancer