Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T21:19:00.317Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Contractual and stewardship timescapes: The cultural logics of US–Philippines environmental conflict and negotiations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2021

Abstract

In 1992, the US military withdrew from its bases in the Philippines. But they left behind environmental toxins that continue to pollute the land and people. Why was the US military able to leave without cleaning up this environmental damage? What can the environment tell us about the broader Philippine–US relationship? In this article I analyse a 2002 class action lawsuit against the United States regarding environmental damages caused by the US military. I argue that at the heart of these legal arguments are different understandings of time and history, what I call a contractual timescape versus a stewardship timescape.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The National University of Singapore, 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The author would like to thank David Biggs, participants in the 2018 Southeast Asian Natures workshop, and participants in UCR Center for Ideas and Society's Advancing Intercultural Studies Mellon seminar on ‘Contested histories: How to write history’ for helpful feedback and comments on the manuscript. The author received funding from UCR's Center for Ideas and Society for a course release to participate in the Contested Histories seminar, which allowed her to write this article.

References

1 For a history of US–Philippine relations, see Go, Julian, Patterns of empire: The British and American empires, 1688 to the present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Go, Julian, American empire and the politics of meaning: Elite political cultures in the Philippines and Puerto Rico during U.S. colonialism (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2008)Google Scholar; Kramer, Paul, The blood of government: Race, empire, the United States, and the Philippines (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2006)Google Scholar; Anderson, Warwick, Colonial pathologies: American tropical medicine, race, and hygiene in the Philippines (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2006)Google Scholar.

2 United States General Accounting Office (GAO), Report to Congressional requesters: Military base closures: U.S. financial obligations in the Philippines, NSIAD-92-51 (Washington, DC: GAO, 1992), pp. 27; https://www.gao.gov/assets/160/151416.pdf.

3 Reyes, Victoria, ‘Global borderlands: A case study of Subic Bay Freeport Zone, Philippines’, Theory and Society 44, 4 (2015): 355–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reyes, Victoria, Global borderlands: Fantasy, violence, and empire in Subic Bay, Philippines (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 For information on how these come together in relation to high-profile criminal cases, military bases and tax agreements, shopping, work, and the relationships between Filipina women and US servicemen as well as the Amerasian children that stem from these relationships, see Reyes, Global borderlands.

5 Crutzen, Paul J. and Stoermer, Eugene F., ‘The “Anthropocene”’, IGBP Newsletter 41, May 2000, pp. 1718Google Scholar, http://www.igbp.net/download/18.316f18321323470177580001401/1376383088452/NL41.pdf; see also Paul J. Crutzen, ‘Geology of mankind’, Nature 415 (2000): 23, https://doi.org/10.1038/415023a.

6 Robin, Libby, ‘Histories for changing times: Entering the Anthropocene?’, Australian Historical Studies 44, 3 (2013): 329–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 For example, Rotherham, Ian D., ‘Eco-fusion of alien and native as a new conceptual framework for historical ecology’, in Environmental history in the making, vol. 1: Explaining, ed. Vaz, Estelita, de Melo, Cristina Joanaz and Pinto, Ligia M. Costa (Cham: Springer, 2017)Google Scholar.

8 For example, Darian-Smith, Eve, ‘Environmental law and Native American law’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science 6 (2010): 359–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For work on environmental racism and environmental privilege, see for example: McGee, Julius Alexander, Ergas, Christina and Clement, Matthew Thomas, ‘Racing to reduce emissions: Assessing the relation between race and carbon dioxide emissions from on-road travel’, Sociology of Development 4, 2 (2018): 217–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Downey, Liam, ‘Environmental racial inequality in Detroit’, Social Forces 85, 2 (2006): 771–96CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. On how the environment plays a role in inequalities between countries see: York, Richard, Rosa, Eugene A. and Dietz, Thomas, ‘Footprints on the earth: The environmental consequences of modernity’, American Sociological Review 68, 2 (2003): 279300CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jorgenson, Andrew K., ‘Consumption and environmental degradation: A cross-national analysis of the ecological footprint’, Social Problems 50, 3 (2003): 374–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Biggs, David, Quagmire: Nation-building and nature in the Mekong Delta (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2010)Google Scholar.

10 Holley, Cameron, Shearing, Clifford, Harrington, Cameron, Kennedy, Amanda and Mutongwizo, Tariro, ‘Environmental security and the Anthropocene: Law, criminology, and international relations’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science 14 (2018): 185203CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Arc Ecology, et al. v. U.S. Dept of the Air Force, et al., No. C02-05651JW, U.S. District Court, N.D. Cal., 3 Dec. 2003.

12 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/cercla.htm (last accessed 2 June 2014).

13 US Code, Armed Forces, General Military Law, Environmental Restoration (10 US Code § 2701(c)(1)(B)); http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2701 (last accessed 2 June 2014).

14 GAO, Military base closures.

15 These were based on limited environmental surveys that did not include soil or water tests.

16 GAO, Military base closures, p. 27.

17 For example, Robert Gonzaga, ‘Clear and present danger to Subic Bay’, Inquirer.net, 12 Dec. 2012, http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/322583/clear-present-danger-to-subic-bay (last accessed 18 Jan. 2018).

18 GAO, Military base closures, p. 27.

19 Agreement between the United States of America and the Republic of the Philippines concerning military bases, 14 March 1947, https://www.loc.gov/law/help/us-treaties/bevans/b-ph-ust000011-0055.pdf (last accessed 29 Nov. 2020).

20 Arc Ecology, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of the Air Force et al., No. C02-05651JW.

21 Arc Ecology, et al. v. U.S. Dept. of the Air Force et al., No. 04-15031, U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th cir., 2005.

22 Ibid. Other reasons for the dismissal include that CERCLA outlined specific steps for foreign claimants, which included having an agreement between the two nations and that the foreign country make reciprocal amends to US claimants. The judges concluded that the petitioner arguments centred on the Clark and Subic facilities, not in the ‘navigable waters, territorial sea, or adjacent shoreline of a foreign country’ as described in the relevant section. Furthermore, other avenues available to the petitioners, provided by Congress, were not explored — for example, the Foreign Claims Act ‘for compensating any “inhabitant of a foreign country” for property loss, personal injury, or death; incident to noncombat activities of US armed forces occurring outside the United States’ — and these avenues clearly specified their applicability, and that the language of CERCLA — the use of ‘district’ ‘state’ and the lack of provisions for foreign sites on the National Priorities List, whose entries are eligible for funds, and the legislative and academic use confirms the domestic nature of the law. Finally, the Court was not convinced of the petitioners’ use of international principles, particularly the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States because the Restatement is not law, and at times not in line with other US positions.

23 Zerubavel, Evitar, Social mindscapes: An invitation to cognitive sociology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), p. 11Google Scholar.

24 Zerubavel, Social mindscapes, p. 15.

25 Ibid.; Zerubavel, Evitar, Hidden rhythms: Schedules and calendars in social life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981)Google Scholar.

26 Adams, Barbara, Timescapes of modernity: The environment and invisible hazards (London: Routledge, 1998), p. 10Google Scholar.

27 See Scott, Robert E., ‘The law and economics of incomplete contracts’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2 (2006): 279–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Eigen, Zev J., ‘When and why individuals obey contracts: Experimental evidence of consent, compliance, promise and performance, Journal of Legal Studies 41, 1 (2012): 6793CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Stinchcombe, Arthur L., ‘On the virtues of the old institutionalism’, Annual Review of Sociology 23 (1997): 118CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

29 Centeno, Miguel A., ‘Between rocky democracies and hard markets: Dilemmas of the double transitions’, Annual Review of Sociology 20 (1994): 125–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Haggard, Stephan, MacIntyre, Andrew and Tiede, Lydia, ‘The rule of law and economic development’, Annual Review of Political Science 11 (2008): 207CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 See Zelizer, Viviana, Economic lives: How culture shapes the economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010)Google Scholar, for discussion of relational work in economic sociology.

32 I use ‘stewardship’ here as a management studies concept. I do not use it to evoke homogeneous, stereotypical imagery of Native American Indian and other indigenous peoples as ‘ecological nobility’. See for example, Nadasdy, Paul, ‘Transcending the debate over the ecologically noble Indian: Indigenous peoples and environmentalism’, Ethnohistory 52, 2 (2005): 291331CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Davis, James H., Schoorman, F. David and Donaldson, Lex, ‘Toward a stewardship theory of management’, Academy of Management Review 22, 1 (1997): 2047CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hernandez, Morela, ‘Promoting stewardship behavior in organizations: A leadership model’, Journal of Business Ethics 80 (2008): 121–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Ibid.

35 Stinchcombe, Arthur, ‘Law facts’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science 1 (2005): 233–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Merry, Sally Engle, ‘Anthropology and international law’, Annual Review of Anthropology 35 (2006): 99116CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 Simmons, Beth A., ‘Capacity, commitment and compliance: International institutions and territorial disputes’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 46, 6 (2002): 829–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Simmons, Beth A., ‘Treaty compliance and violation’, Annual Review of Political Science 13 (2010): 273–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Keohane, Robert O., After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005 [1984])Google Scholar; Gibler, Douglas M., ‘The costs of reneging: Reputation and alliance formation’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 52, 3 (2008): 426–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goldstein, Judith L., Rivers, Douglas and Tomz, Michael, ‘Institutions in international relations: Understanding the effects of the GATT and the WTO on world trade’, International Organization 61, 1 (2007): 3767CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chayes, Abram and Chayes, Antonia Handler, The new sovereignty: Compliance with international regulatory agreements (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995)Google Scholar; Simmons, Beth A. and Danner, Allison, ‘Credible commitments and the International Criminal Court’, International Organization 64, 2 (2010): 225–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Slaughter, Anne-Marie, ‘International law in a world of liberal states’, European Journal of International Law 6, 1 (1995): 503–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Slaughter, Anne-Marie and Zaring, David, ‘Networking goes international: An update’, Annual Review of Law and Social Science 2 (2006): 211–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Slaughter, Anne-Marie, A new world order (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004)Google Scholar; Chayes and Chayes, The new sovereignty.

40 See for example, Weil, Prosper, ‘Towards relative normativity in international law?’, American Journal of International Law 77, 3 (1983): 413–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Abbott, Kenneth W. and Snidal, Duncan, ‘Hard and soft law in international governance’, International Organization 54, 3 (2000): 421–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 See Steven Lukes, Power: A radical view (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005 [1974]); and John Gaventa, Power and powerlessness: Quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian Valley (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1982) on the three dimensions of power.

42 For further discussion of the military bases agreement and its amendments and successors, see Reyes, Global borderlands.

43 GAO, Report to Congressional Requesters: Military Base Closures: U.S. Financial Obligations in the Philippines, 1992, pp. 30.

44 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Security Between the Government of the Philippines and Government of the United States, 27 August 1991, Article VIII, p. 43.

45 Agreement between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and Government of the United States of America on Enhanced Defense Cooperation, Article IX: ‘Environment, Human Health and Safety’, Quezon City, 29 Apr. 2014; ttps://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2014/04/29/document-enhanced-defense-cooperation-agreement/.

46 Ibid.

47 Lukes, Power.

48 Cyril (pseud.), interview, 2012.

49 Douglas, Mary, Purity and danger: An analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo (London: Routledge, 2008 [1966])Google Scholar.

50 See further Reyes, Victoria, ‘Legacies of place and power: From military base to Freeport Zone’, City & Community 14, 1 (2015): 126CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 Taylor, Charles, Modern social imaginaries (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Reyes, Global borderlands.

52 Reyes, Global borderlands.

53 Nixon, Rob, Slow violence and the environmentalism of the poor (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011), p. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 For a study on asbestos-related illness in Filipino former base workers see: Diaz, Dina V., ‘Asbestos-related diseases in the Philippines: The Lung Center of the Philippines asbestos screening’, Acta Medica Philippina 43, 3 (2009): 64–9Google Scholar. For examples of news coverage, see Joel Zurbano, ‘Former Subic workers file asbestos suit’, Olongapo Subic Bay Batang Gapo Newscenter, 23 Aug. 2005, http://subicbaynews.blogspot.com/2005/08/former-subic-workers-file-asbestos.html; and Travis Tritten, ‘Decades’, Stars and Stripes, 2 Feb. 2010, https://www.stripes.com/news/decades-later-u-s-military-pollution-in-philippines-linked-to-deaths-1.98570 (both last accessed 8 Nov. 2018).

55 See for example, Jing Villamente, ‘Hazardous chemicals in Subic Freeport slammed’, Manila Times, 16 Sept. 2013, https://www.pressreader.com/philippines/manila-times/20130916/281728382204047 (last accessed 8 Nov. 2018).

56 Reyes, Global borderlands.