Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Counterinsurgency
Policy in the Philippines
Author(s): Roxanne Lynn Doty
Source: International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 3 (Sep., 1993), pp. 297-320
Published by: Wiley on behalf of The International Studies Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2600810 .
Accessed: 03/09/2014 04:00
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and The International Studies Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to International Studies Quarterly.
http://www.jstor.org
International
StudiesQuarterly
(1993) 37, 297-320
ArizonaStateUniversity
Much of the criticismdirected at post-positivist
internationalrelations
has called for more detailed explorationof its implicationsfor specific
areas of investigation.
At the same time,the studyof foreignpolicyhas
been largelyunaffectedbythe criticalinsightsofferedbypost-positivism.
This paper attemptsto bridgethisgap byexaminingthreeapproaches to
foreignpolicyanalysisand the metatheoreticalissuesunderlyingeach of
them. It is suggested that an approach informed by post-positivist
insightscan provide a useful alternativeto traditionalwaysof studying
foreignpolicyand can facilitatea more criticalinterpretation
of foreign
policy practices. The firsttwo approaches, the Cognitive DecisionmakingApproach and the Social PerformanceApproach,werechosen as
a wayof differentiating
and highlightingthe ontologicaland theoretical
issues that are relevantto understandingand situatingthe Discursive
PracticesApproach. Afterexamining the three approaches, I use the
DiscursivePracticesApproach to analyze United States' counterinsurgencypolicyin the Philippinescirca 1950.
On July 4, 1946, for the first time in history, an imperial nation voluntarily
relinquished possession of its colonial conquest (Karnow, 1989:323). As the United
States granted independence to the Philippines the new relationship between the
two was widely heralded as one of partnership and equality. The Filipino people, it
was said, had demonstrated their capacity for democratic self-governmentand had
earned the right of independence (MacArthur, 1946). The emergence of the
Philippines as a sovereign nation was hailed as conclusive proof that the United
States stood for fair play, liberty and freedom, and progress and prosperity for
other peoples (McDonough, 1946).
Despite this optimistic beginning, the United States was soon to embark on an
interventionistcourse that displayed little respect for Philippine sovereignty.The
question arises as to how this interventionistpolicy came to be deemed necessary
and nonintervention unthinkable. How, amidst all the profession of sovereign
Author's
note: I would like to thankthe followingindividualsfor theircommentson variousdraftsof thispaper:
RichardAshley,FrancisBeer,Jack Crittenen,RaymondDuvall, David Sylvan,Stephen Walker,CynthiaWeber, and
AlexanderWendt. I would also like to thankthree anonymousreviewersand the editorsat ISQ especiallyRichard
Herrmann.
? 1993 InternationalStudiesAssociation.
PublishedbyBlackwellPublishers,238 Main Street,Cambridge,MA 02142, USA, and 108 CowleyRoad, OxfordOX4
1JF,UK.
298
lUsefuldiscussionsof why-and how-questionscan be found in Little (1991:chap. 1) and Cross (1991). Also see
Wendt (1987:362-363) for a discussion of the distinctionbetween why-and how-questions as theypertain to
structuralvs. historicalexplanations.Also relevantis Sylvanand Glassner's (1985:7-9) discussionof possibilism,an
explanation that should be familiarto studentsof internationalrelations. George (1979:103) suggeststhat an
of decision making.This is consistentwithan
not determinants,
individual'soperationalcode introducespropensities,
Similarly,Sprout and Sprout's (1965) "environmentaipossibilism"suggests
explanation thatfocuseson possibilities.
supports,
or resists
certainbehaviors.
behavior,but ratherpermits,
thatthe environmentdoes not deternine
ROXANNE
LYNNDOTY
299
The CognitiveDecision-making
Approach
Internationalrelations scholars who have been influenced by the "cognitive
revolution"in psychologyand other fields have long been sensitiveto the
2The conceptualizationof powerbeing suggestedhere is thatofferedbyMichel Foucault. (Originalworksinclude
thosepublishedin 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1983). Usefulsecondarysourcesare Dreyfusand Rabinow (1983) and Clegg
(1989:chap. 7).
300
Such a suggestionimplicitly
threeimportantissues
opens up forfurtherscrutiny
whichscholarsworkingwithinthisapproach have not addressed. (1) In order to
have anythingto perceive,subjectsmustbe situatedwithinthe social order. This
calls our attentionto the constructionof thatsocial order (the environment)itself.
(2) The privilegingof the subject'sperceptionsrendersvulnerablethe veryconis exhibitedin theliteratureitselfby
cept of an "objective"reality.This vulnerability
suggestionsthat analysts"disregardthe so-called 'real world' external to the
environedindividualor decisionalgroup" (Sproutand Sprout,1965:119). (3) The
subject itselfbecomes problematic. The decision-makingliteratureitself has
highlightedthis issue through its focus on modal actors and shared images.
Movingtowarda constructionof realitywhichis not necessarilythe productof a
particularindividualsuggeststhat the subject may be a social collective,i.e., a
group of decision makers,a bureaucracy,or the state.This raises the possibility
that the source of meaning,the social registerof value, and agent of action may
not be the individual.Perhapssubjectsin general,whetherindividualor collective,
are themselvesconstructed.
To so regard the subject is to render that subject a problem in need of an
accounting.Such a problematizationis not possiblewithinthe cognitivedecisionmakingframework
because it would destabilizethe veryground upon which this
framework
stands,i.e., the individualor collectivesubject.The consequence of this
is that the kind of how-possiblequestion discussed earlier and the question of
powerthatit impliescannotbe raised.
ROXANNELYNNDOTY
301
302
The DiscursivePracticesApproach
A DiscursivePracticesApproachemphasizesthe linguisticconstruction
ofreality.6
The
productivenature of language does not depend on nor necessarilycoincide with
the motivations,perceptions, intentions,or understandingsof social actors.
Language is seen as a set of signswhichare partof a systemforgeneratingsubjects,
objects,and worlds (Shapiro, 1984:222). The DiscursivePracticesApproach thus
of a conscious,meaning-giving
obviatesthe need for recourse to the interiority
of individuals
subject,eitherin termsof psychologicaland cognitivecharacteristics
Whetheror not these exist is
or shared mental templatesof social collectivities.
somewhatbeside the pointbecause the DiscursivePracticesApproachis not tied to
them.7
This kind of approach addressesthe how-questiondiscussedearlierbecause it
does not presuppose thatparticularsubjectsare alreadyin place. It thusdoes not
look to individualor collectivesubjectsas the loci of meaning.Regardinglanguage
practicesthemselvesas relativelyautonomous admits the question of a kind of
and "reality."In contrastto
power thatconstitutessubjects,modes of subjectivity,
the Social PerformanceApproach in which signifiers(words,images) ultimately
referback to signifieds(shared templates),in the DiscursivePracticesApproach
hence the notion of intertextuality,
i.e., a
signifiersreferonly to other signifiers,
complex and infinitely
expandingweb of possible meanings.That meaning does
is
oftenappear to be fixedand decideable ratherthan an infiniteplayof signifiers
indicativeof the workingsof power. This presentsus with a radicallynew conception of powerwhichis inherentin the linguisticpracticesbywhichagentsare
constructedand become articulatedwithinparticulardiscourses.
This approach, like any approach, has its analyticform. The form of this
approach is a "discursivepractice."A discursivepracticeis not traceableto a fixed
and stable center,e.g., individualconsciousnessor a social collective.Discursive
practicesthatconstitutesubjectsand modes of subjectivity
are dispersed,scattered
is important.
throughoutvariouslocales. This is whythe notion of intertextuality
Texts alwaysreferback to other textswhich themselvesreferto stillother texts.
The power thatis inherentin language is thusnot somethingthatis centralized,
emanatingfroma pre-givensubject.Rather,like the discursivepracticesin whichit
inheres,poweris dispersedand, mostimportant,is productiveof subjectsand their
worlds.
A discourse,i.e., a systemof statementsin which each individualstatement
makessense,produces interpretive
impossibleto
possibilitiesbymakingitvirtually
thinkoutside of it. A discourseprovidesdiscursivespaces,i.e., concepts,categories,
metaphors,models,and analogiesbywhichmeaningsare created.The production
and socialityis indissoluble (Henriques et al.,
of discoursesand of subjectivity
ROXANNELYNN DOTY
303
1984:106). This is because discoursescreatevariouskindsof subjectsand simultaone another. For example, a traditional
neously position these subjectsvis-a-vis
discourse on the familywould contain spaces for a subject with traitscondefinedas "male"and anotherkindof subjectwithtraitsconventionally
ventionally
one anotherin a
definedas "female."These subjectswould be positionedvis-a-vis
particularway,e.g.,femalesubservientto male. Withinthe traditionaldiscourseon
the familyit is impossibleto thinkoutside of these categoriesexcept in termsof
devianceor abnormality.
Withinthisdiscourse,thereis no discursivespace forthe
single motherby choice or the gay or lesbian couple with children except as
departuresfromthe "normal"familyor as deviants.Subjects,then,can be thought
of as positionswithinparticulardiscourses,intelligibleonly withreferenceto a
specificsetof categories,concepts,and practices.
Policymakersalso functionwithina discursivespace thatimposesmeaningson
theirworld and thus createsreality(Shapiro, 1988:100, 116). An approach that
focuseson discursivepracticesas a unit of analysiscan get at howthis "reality"is
produced and maintainedand howit makesvariouspracticespossible.The analytic
questionaddressedis not whyparticulardecisionsare made; the policydecision in
itselfbecomes a secondaryconcern. What is central is the discourse(s) which
constructa particular"reality."An analysisof discoursescan reveal the necessary
but not sufficient
conditionsofvariouspractices.
Applyingthisapproach to the studyof foreignpolicy,not onlydo we broaden
our conception of what foreignpolicy is, the sites of foreignpolicy,i.e., where
foreignpolicy takes place, also become much more extensive.This approach
suggeststhatwhat foreignpolicy is need not be limitedto the actual makingof
and spatiallybounded "events."
specificdecisionsnor the analysisof temporally
Similarly,"foreignpolicymakers"need not be limitedto prominentdecision
makers,but could also include those ratheranonymousmembersof the various
bureaucracieswho writethe numerousmemorandums,intelligencereports,and
researchpapers thatcirculatewithinpolicycircles.The discourse(s) instantiatedin
thesevariousdocumentsproduce meaningsand in doing so activelyconstructthe
"reality"
upon whichforeignpolicyis based.
Moreover,foreignpolicymakingcan also extend beyond the realm of official
governmentinstitutions.The reception as meaningfulof statementsrevolving
around policysituationsdepends on how well theyfitinto the general systemof
representationin a givensociety.Even speeches and press conferencestatements
produced for specificpurposes,in order to be taken seriously,mustmake sense
and fit with what the general public takes as "reality."Thus, the analysisof
statementscan entail the examinationof whatwas said and writtenwithinbroad
contextsas wellas statements
policy-making
made in societymoregenerally.8
Below I employthe DiscursivePracticesApproach in an analysisof U.S. counterinsurgency
policyin the Philippinescirca 1950. In doing so, I intend to show
how foreignpolicypracticesconstructedan importantaspect of internationalrelations.The aspect of internationalrelationsthatis of concern to me is its hierarchicalnature.
In internationalrelations,hierarchyhas been more of a backgroundcondition
fromwhich analysesproceed ratherthan somethingwhich is itselfin need of
examination.For example, classical realism tacitlyaccepted the rightof Great
8In a sense thisis why"public opinion" becomes relevantto policymakers.When the public stronglyobjects to
U.S. policy,it is often,at least in part,because officialrepresentationsdo not fitwell withsociety'srepresentations.
The example thatmostreadilycomes to mind is Vietnam.As the war dragged on different
representation(s)of the
situationbegan to compete withthe officialone, thusmakingit increasingly
difficult
forU.S. officialsto portraythe
situationas a simpleone of communismversusdemocracyor good versusevil.
304
9An exception to the more well known conceptions of hierarchyin internationalrelationsis Onuf and Klink
(1989), who suggestthata paradigmbased on Weber's three ideal typesof rule can facilitatean understandingof
internationalhierarchicalrelations.
ROXANNELYNN DOTY
305
anotherand therebyconstructing
a particular"reality"
in whichthispolicybecame
possible,as well as a larger"reality"in whichfuturepolicies would be justifiedin
advance. In the one case language revealsand is at least potentiallyneutral.In the
othercase language doesthingsand is inherently
powerful.
There is another importantand related differencebetween the two kinds of
analyses.Shaferis askinga why-question.
The questionI am posing is a howpossible
question.Garfinkel(1981:22) pointsout thatwhataspectof a givenstateof affairs
is
taken to be problematic radically alters the success or failure of potential
explanations.Shaferis takingthe shared ideas and analyticalframework
of policy
makersto be problematic.Thus,a successfulexplanationmustfocuson thesethings
and explainwhytheyled to or increasedtheprobability
ofparticularpolicies.
What I take to be problematicis the existence of subjects themselves,their
positioningvis-a-vis
one another,and the "reality"
thatmade certainstructures
and
meaningspossible. How we know what these arrangementsand meaningsare is
throughthe categories,concepts,metaphors,and analogiesprovidedbylanguage.
Since, for the DiscursivePracticesApproach, subjectsdo not exist prior to their
productionin particulardiscourses,and the constitutive
role of language is not
tied to perceptionsand othercognitivefeatures,I cannot drawupon such features
of preexistingsubjectsto explain howthose subjectsthemselvesand theirpractices
are made possible.A successfulexplanationmustfocuson how language worksto
produce subjectsand theirrelationships.
In one sense myhow-possibleexplanationis a structuralone and is consistent
withLittle's (1991:4-5) suggestionthathow-possiblequestionsare associatedwith
the behaviorof complexsystems,
and social organizations.However,it is
structures,
importantto distinguishmy explanation from those that tend to subordinate
specificcontentand practicesto abstractand a prioristructuralneeds. I am not a
prioripositinga structure
withcertainneeds and thensuggestinghow it determines
meaningsand practices.Rather,in emphasizingdiscursivepractices,I am suggestingthatstructure
itselfis constructedalong withthemeaningswhichsimultaneously
producesubject'sidentitiesand theirpositionsvis-a-vis
one another.Possibilities
are
not explainedby the priorexistenceof structures
or social actors,but ratherby the
continualand simultaneousproductionofsubjectsand structures.10
ResearchDesign
Discourseanalyticmethodsfacilitatethe examinationof thevariousmechanismsat
work in texts. This said, however, it would be misleading to suggest that
on the part
is not an importantpart of myanalysis.Interpretation,
interpretation
of the analyst,is an importantaspect of all three of the approaches discussedin
thisarticle.The differencewiththe DiscursivePracticesApproach is thatI am not
providingan interpretationof the consciouslymotivated,self-serving
images
of what
constructedby the participants.Rather,I am providingan interpretation
the discursivepractices do, which does not necessarilycoincide with individual
motivations,
perceptions,and intentions.
IOAnotable contrastcan be made here withtwo of the dominant structuraltheoriesof internationalrelations.
The neorealistconceptionof structureis individualist,
reducibleto the propertiesof states(or agents) (Ashley,1984;
Wendt, 1987). World-system
theory'sconception of structureis of a "deep structure"thatgeneratesboth stateand
class actors.As Wendt (1987) correctlypointsout, each of these twoapproaches treatsits "primitiveunits"as given
and unproblematic.The DiscursivePracticesApproach permitsme to address the simultaneousconstructionof both
subjects and structureswithoutbringing analysis to rest with either, and without holding one constant while
addressingthe productionof the other,or "bracketing."
On the notion of "bracketing"see Wendt (1987:364-365)
and Giddens (1979:80-81).
306
DOTY
ROXANNELYNN
307
Predication
In the above excerptthe "native"is endowed withthe followingqualities:inefficiency,contentand doglike follower,never looks ahead, does not reflectupon
consequences,has no idea of organizationon a large scale, naturallydelightsin
pillage, destruction,and bloodshed, naturallygreedy and cruel, and does
imprudentthingsifleftto himself.
Together these qualities, or clusterof predicates,constitutethe native as a
particularkind of subject.In contrast,the European, here the speakingsubject,is
inscribedwithquite different
qualities.This is oftenimplicitratherthanexplicit.In
the firstsentence "you"refersto the European, thuscreatinga relationof identity
among the reader, the author, and the European and a relation of opposition
betweenthese subjectsand the Filipinonative,here the object of discussion.The
and knowledgeablesubjectsare
reader,author,and European as speaking,writing,
"self"to the Filipino"other"who is the object of theirknowledge.The European is
establishedas a subjectwho can "know"the Filipino,is able to accuratelydescribe
the truenatureof the Filipino,and fromthatnaturederivevariouspracticesthat
are appropriate.
Presupposition
of
What backgroundknowledgeis created in the above excerpt?The superiority
the European is takenforgranted,a "fact"not open to question.The construction
analysis.Nor do
"lThe particular"methods"I use here are byno means the onlywayto engage in a post-positivist
I mean to suggestthattheyare superiorto other possible "methods."I merelywishto suggestthatthisis one wayto
fora specificarea of investigation.
examine the implicationsof post-positivism
308
In constituting
particularkindsof subjects,the excerptalso positionsthesesubjects
vis-a-vis
one another by assigningthem varyingdegrees of agency.For example,
a subjectwho does not reflectupon consequences and is a contentand doglike
followerhas a much simplerdegree of agencythana subjectwho has the qualities
it takes to be an officer.The veryfactthatthe European is the speakingsubject
and the "native"the subject/objectof thisdiscoursepositionsthesesubjectsvis-a-vis
one another.Here, the qualitiesthatdefinethe twokindsof subjectsare oppositionalones.
We do findotherrelations,however,in thisexcerpt.The "native"is positioned
in a relationof similarity
witha dog. Like a dog, the "native"requiresfood and fair
If treatedproperly,he willbe faithful
treatment.
to his master."Proper"treatment,
however,must not be kindness,"accordingto European notions."The "native"
would be lost if thiswas done. The "fair"treatmentto be accorded to "natives"is
more akin to the treatmenta European would give to a dog than to another
European.
The above passage, as partof a largerdiscourse,createsa "world"in the sense
thata particular"reality"mustbe accepted in order for the statementsto make
sense. Certainpracticeswere made possible,because in the worldinstantiatedby
these textstheyseemed reasonable and probablyquite unremarkable.As noted
standardsof "fair"treatment
forthe "native"and
above, therewere to be different
for the European. Since the "native"was the kind of subject who was naturally
prone to pillage,destruction,and bloodshed, then disciplineand controlon the
part of the European would be justified.If the "natives"did not understand
kindness,then force and violence would be justified.Colonization thus became
thinkable.
This example,in large partdue to itstransparency,
nicelyillustrateshow predication, presupposition,and subject positioningwork.From this illustrationone
might inferthat these methods would not take us veryfar analyticallysimply
because the "findings"are so obvious. There are three importantpoints to be
made in responseto thispossibleinference:(1) Granted,we oftendo not have to
look veryfarto findthese textualmechanismsat work.They are frequently
right
there on the surface. (2) More importantthough,my approach permitsme to
cases. (3) Finally,thisapproach permits
trackthesemechanismsin less transparent
one to explain how, despite such obviousness,these constructionscan become
of an attitudeof "self"toward"other,"thusmakwidelycirculatedand constitutive
ing particularpracticespossible.
This last point impliesthat individualtextsdo not exist in a vacuum. Rather,
theyare intertwinedwithother textsforminga complex web of intertextuality.
Differenttextswithinthe same arena (i.e., site) and textsfromdifferent
arenas
may share the same logic according to which meaning is created and subjects
constructed.If the same kindsof subjects,objects,and relationsare foundto exist
in different
texts,thisis indicativeof a particularlogic at work.We can thinkof
textsthatillustratethe same kindof logic as constituting
a controllingor dominant
discourse.For example,a numberof different
and distinctdiscoursesmayfunction
ROXANNE
LYNNDOTY
309
Language,Counterinsurgency,
Practice
Counterinsurgency
policieshavebeen a majorelementofpostWorldWarII foreign
policy towardthe countriescollectivelyreferredto as the "Third World." Such
policieswere consideredessentialwithinthe contextof a worlddividedalong the
geopoliticallines of East versusWestwitheach side seekingto win the heartsand
mindsof thosenot yetfullycommittedto eithercamp. Many"conversations"
have
taken place and documentshave been generatedwithinthe contextof specific
counterinsurgency
operations.Adheringto theunderstanding
of languageoutlined
in the DiscursivePracticesApproach,these textsprovidea usefulsource of "data"
fromwhichto examinethewaylinguisticpracticesactively
construct
world(s).
Counterinsurgency
generallyoccurswithinthe contextof profoundmilitary
and
economic powerdifferentials.
The hierarchyof military
and economic power that
existsbetween the U.S. and the Third World is for the most part indisputable.
What has not been previouslyexamined, however,is the wayin whichlanguage
worksto constructa kind of hierarchythatmayor maynot coincide withmilitary
and/or economic hierarchies.When these hierarchiesdo coincide important
implicationsfollowforthe kindsof practicesmade possible.
One of the earliestand paradigmaticinstancesof U.S. counterinsurgency
policy
occurredin the Philippinesduringthe Huk Rebellion of the early1950s.12After
independence, the Philippinesbecame an importantsymbolof United States'
benevolence regardingits position as a formercolonial power. They were an
importantsource of both prestigeand identityforthe U.S.13The Huk Rebellion,
therefore,
presentedthe U.S. witha dilemma.On the one hand, overtintervention
would call into question the sovereignty
and independence of the Philippines,
whichin turnwould call into question the successof the U.S. effortto "civilize"a
people and cultivatea democracy.On the otherhand, the "loss"of the Philippines
to communismwould also mean a failureon the part of the U.S. The discourse
instantiatedin response to this dilemma worked to simultaneouslyconstruct
identitiesand positionsubjectsvis-a-vis
one another.
Subjectsof a discourseshould not be confusedwithindividuals.An individual
mayhave multiplesubjectivities.
Similarly,
there maybe multiplephysicalindivid-
'20ne of the best studieson the Huk Rebellion is Kerkvliet(1977). Also see Schirmerand Shalom (1987), Welch
(1984), Karnow(1989), Shalom (1976, 1977), and Bonner (1987). It is noteworthy
thatEdwardLansdale, the "hero"
of the U.S. counterinsurgencyin the Philippines, was a major figurein U.S. Vietnam policy. Lansdale was also
broughtin byRonald Reagan to offeradvice on how to get rid of the Sandinistas.
'3The Philippineswerealso importantforgeopoliticaland economic reasons.The reconstruction
ofJapanand its
reintegrationinto the regional economy meant that Southeast Asia would become an importantsource of raw
materialsand marketsbecause Japan would be free of dependence on U.S. aid. It was deemed essential to U.S.
securitythatJapanbecome an alternativeanchor forU.S. powerin Asia as China had ceased to playthatrole.
310
uals thatconstitutea single subject.The state,as an internationalsubject,is constructedby the discursivepracticesof thosewho speak about,writeabout, and act
on itsbehalf.U.S. foreignpolicypracticesare importantelementsin the production
of the U.S. At the same time thisidentityis
and reproductionof the self-identity
created against the "other,"i.e., other states.The qualities that are linked to a
"people,"e.g., the "Filipinos,"can become attachedto a geographicallocationand
thePhilippines.
therebyserveas thebasisforconstructing
Analysis
I begin this analysisin a purelyempiricistmanner. My data is the ensemble of
statementsfoundin the documentssurroundingthisparticularsiteof U.S. foreign
policy.14All of these documents were read with an eye toward the textual
mechanismsdiscussedabove: predication,presupposition,
and subjectpositioning.
Predication
ROXANNJE
LYNN DOTY
(.0
clr clr
C'J
311
C-4
CJ
bJD
ct ct
cn cn
ct
ct
Ct (:) Ct
C) bC
6,
ct
biD
.4
CJ
c)
It
biD
ct
C'l
ct
ct
Ct
ct
biD
45
ct
2
ct ct
ct rc
ct
t-,ct
>
cli
4. 1
r. Q
u ct
ct
ct
t
biD cli
biD
an
4_4
-- 0
bJD
U :z Z
Z "C
ct
>,
Ct u
UO
ct
biO
-C
biO
ct
C-4 ho
z
ct
C/)
biD (C
ct
4-J
E
U U
_'C5
ct
bio
ct
C/)
zct
. ct
M C)
14.
ct
biD
ct
14.
ct
ct
ct
ct
biD
biD
ct
'r,
U
Z --,
u Ln
Cl
41.1
C'4
4-,
bO
cq
biD
Z
C)
U >,
Q
bD
Q)
ct
ct
biO7Z
4-4
Cj)
C)
ct
4-,
fj
bo
ct
4..j
bo
cn cn
ct ct
4M. M
cn b.0
4", z
M
CZ z
m
u Q
Q
z
0
CZ ct
Q
C'4 -
--,
bJO
ct
Iz
ul
U
C'I
Cl
-,
u
0
a.
.7-'
r-, m
Ch
C/)Z
Ce)
ct
4-J
21-
Q) QC
0
q,-
14.
ct
ct
bo
ct
ho
14.
u
ct
>1
42
biD
ct
C)
C).
u
cn
C).--- C)
C)
4
C)
0
312
ROXANNELYNN DOTY
313
314
However, when juxtaposed with the Philippines,both the U.S. and U.S.S.R.
became similarkindsof subjects.
In contrast,the subject position(s) available for Filipinosand the Philippines
were much less complex. Filipinosubjectivity
did not include a rational,coherent
world view. Support for, as well as nonsupportof, communismwas based on
passion and emotionratherthanon a reasonableassessmentand understandingof
its tenets. This was due to the basic intellectualsimplicityof the Filipino, as
illustratedin Table 1.
Ifwe accept the premisethatthe attributes
linkedto human beingscan become
attached to geographical space, then these texts illustrate the discursive
constructionof a particularkind of nation-state,
i.e., the "ThirdWorldstate."This
kind of state is characterized by disorder, chaos, corruption,and general
At the same time,foreconomic and/or geopoliticalreasons,thisstate
ineptitude.15
is needed bythe U.S. or theWestmore generally.The "good guys,"the precocious
children, must thereforebe found, constructedas "the people," guided, and
"16
cultivatedto become mature"worldcitizens.
The intertextual
nature of these textsbecomes importanthere. To borrow a
phrasefromBarthes(1987:135), thesetextswere "pluggedin" to each otheras well
as to othertexts;otherforeignpolicytexts,social science texts,and nonacademic
texts.Though not included in this study,even a cursoryexaminationof social
science literaturedealingwiththe ThirdWorldrevealsthatit containsmanyof the
oppositionsshownhere. This is mostevidentin the area of developmentstudies,
and particularly
in the body of literatureknownas "modernizationtheory."17
At
the same time,we see the reproductionof a particularU.S. identity,i.e., moral,
rational,efficient,
honest.
Finally,at a more general level,these textsconstructeda hierarchicalstructure
which consistedof varioussubjectpositions.I do not claim to have uncovereda
"deep structure"existingpriorto practice,thatthen made possibleor constrained
the practices of preexistingsubjects.What I do claim to have shown is how
discursivepracticesthemselvesconstructedboth the subjects(withvaryingdegrees
of agency) and the relationsamong them.The "deep structure,"
then,is no more
or less than these practices.Their significanceand power is to be found in their
createmeanings,and therebynaturalizea
abilityto frameinterpretive
possibilities,
particularstateof affairs.
The state of affairsthat was naturalizedin this discourse consisted of three
subject-positions,or kinds of identities;the imminentlyrational, moral, and
powerfulU.S., the equallyrationaland powerfulbut morallylackingU.S.S.R., and
the thirdkind of subjectguided byemotionand passion,yetfullof potentialwith
the proper guidance. The Huks were an example of what could happen without
the properinfluenceand control.
'5The theme of corruption,inefficiency,
and ineptitude in Third World governmentsis prevalent in North
Americansocial science literature.
Jacksonand Rosberghave describedthe "fundamentalpredicamentof statehood
in Africa"as "its existence almost exclusivelyas an exploitable treasuretrovedevoid of moral value" (1987:527).
GunnarMyrdalused the term"softstate"to describe all underdevelopedcountries."The underdevelopedcountries
are all, thoughin varyingdegrees, 'softstates"' (1970:208). "The term'softstate' is understoodto compriseall the
varioustypesof social indiscipline. . . (1970:208). The point here is not to saywhethercorruptionand inefficiency
are or are not "factsof life"in "underdeveloped"countries.The point is to highlighta particularrepresentationof
"underdeveloped"countries. Corruptionand inefficiencyare attributesthat become elements in the identityof
"underdeveloped"countries'governments,but not "developed" countries'governments.It is significantto note, in
contrast,that corruptionin American politics,e.g., Tammany Hall and big-citypolitics,as well as more current
are contained withinthe domesticboundaries of the U.S. They are not
incidents,e.g., Watergateand Iran--Contra,
of the identityof the United Statesin internationalrelations.
constitutive
60n constructing"thepeople" see Weber (1992).
'7For otherstudiesthatmake similarsuggestionssee Escobar (1984),Johnston(1991), Shafer(1988:chap. 6), and
Doty (1991).
ROXANNELYNN DOTY
315
Given thisconfiguration
of subjectpositionsand the resultant"reality,"
we can
ask whatcoursesof actionwould seem natural?To "do nothing"would hardlybe a
reasonableoption.If the Philippineswerea "showwindowof democracy,"a "testing
ground forAmericanleadership,"a "keyto Sovietcontrol,"it would hardlymake
sense for the U.S. to do nothingwhen they (the Philippines)were faced witha
"threatto internalsecurity"
and were "incapableof understanding"
theirown problems and solutions.In such a situation,to do nothingwould mean the U.S. would
abrogateits"moralposition"in theworld.Thus, doing nothingwas not a possibility.
".... to do nothingwould resultin disaster"(NSC84/1). ". . . in the contextof the
presentworldsituationthereis no acceptablealternative"
(FR51,Part1:57).
For an interesting
counterfactual
we can tryto imaginea discoursein whichthe
identityof the Philippineswas similarto thatof the U.S. We can ask ourselvesif
thatwere the case, would "do nothing"have been a reasonable policyoption? It
A subjectwho understoodthe natureof the
would,at least,have been a possibility.
problems and solutionsand was guided by rationalityratherthan passion and
emotionmightnot have necessitatedU.S. intervention.
Shafer's (1988) studyis quite tellingin this regard. Shafer suggeststhat U.S.
counterinsurgency
policyin the Philippineswas largelyirrelevantand the successful defeat of the Huks was basicallyattributableto the Philippines' own policies
and good indigenousleadership.This suggestionraises the possibilitythat,while
not examinedin thisstudy,the indigenousPhilippinediscoursewas quite different
fromthatexamined here and in all likelihoodcreateddifferent
interpretive
possibilitiesand made possiblepracticesprecludedbythe U.S. foreignpolicydiscourse.
We can pose another question regardingpossible practices.In this particular
discourse,was it possible for the U.S. to intervenethroughthe directuse of its
military
mightto crushthe Huks? It seems doubtful.This would call into question
the "sovereignty"
and "independence"of the Philippines.It would also call into
question the success of the American "experiment"thatwas the Philippines.As
suggested by a 1950 militaryreport, ". . . the use of U.S. leadership should be
clothed in every manner possible with the pretense of local action and
responsibility"
(Craig,1950:4). Thus, the directand overtuse of U.S. military
might
was not a possibility,
either.
If "do nothing"and directuse of military
powerwere not possibilities,then this
suggeststhatsome otherkind of intervention
was imperative.The keywas forthe
U.S. to findjust the rightkind of intervention
to deal withThird Worldinsurgencies and revolutions.That "masterkey"
was counterinsurgency
(Shafer,1988:11).
From the approach taken in this studycounterinsurgency
discoursescannot be
viewed solely or even primarilyas discussionsabout a particularsituationand
of the situations
optionsforcopingwithit. Rather,thesediscourseswereproductive
the ThirdWorld,and the individualcountriesthatare partof it.
themselves,
Counterinsurgency
discourse is also an example of power in its productive
aspect.AfterWorldWar II, withthe delegitimationof colonialismand subsequent
decolonizationof the Third World,modernitybecame a trulyglobal project.U.S.
foreignpolicyin the ThirdWorldwas closelytiedwiththese modernistaspirations
and with the social and other sciences that sought to promote them. U.S.
counterinsurgency
policies were in large part attemptsto gain influence and
controlover "development"processes in the Third World withinthe contextof
containingthe "Communistthreat."'18
Power,in the Foucaultian sense discussedearlier,involvesthe constructionof
categoriesof normalcyand deviance. The group of countriesclassifiedas the
"ThirdWorld"were the internationaldeviants,the problemchildrenthatposed a
'8See Shafer (1988:chap. 5) for a discussionof the linksbetween developmentpolicies, academic theoriesand
prescriptions,
and U.S. counterinsurgency
doctrine.
316
Conclusion
I have attemptedto showhow a foreignpolicydiscoursecreatedspaces forcertain
kindsof subjects.Through representational
practicesthatrelied upon a seriesof
oppositionsand otherrelationsa hierarchyof subjectswas createdwhich,in turn,
made certainpracticespossible and precluded others.I have tried to show that
given the world constructedin these policydiscoursessomekind of intervention
wouldbe imperative.
I have also attemptedto broaden our conceptionof whatforeignpolicymaking
is. The "foreign,"the "exotic,"the "other,"withwhomforeignpolicymakersdeal,
are alwaysbeing createdat varioussites.To the extentthatsimilarkindsof subjects
are reproduced in various sites and over periods of time, this result tells us
somethingabout the prevalence of particularrepresentationsthat constructa
hierarchicalworld.Since thisstudyhas onlydealtwithone particularsiteofforeign
narrowtimeframe,I can onlyclaim to have shownthatin this
policyin a relatively
Whatneeds to be done is to
particularcase, a hierarchicalworldwas constructed.19
timeperiods.
analyzeotherdiscoursesin othersettingsand duringdifferent
19Inthisregardsee Doty (1991) and Millikenand Sylvan(1991). Here I would also call attentionto Herrmann
(1988), who examined the cognitiverepresentations
of the Third WorldemployedbySovietelites.He came up with
constructionsof "reality"
thatare consistentwithwhatI found in thisstudy.Herrmann'sstudyis significantfortwo
reasons. First,he examines a differentcase involvingdifferentdocuments,differentsubject matter,and different
actors. Second, the frameworkhe used is quite differentfrom mine. Although he makes use of documents,
Herrmann's focus is on the perceptionsof elites. His study,although it did not address internationalhierarchy,
nonethelesssupportsmyfindingsand adds credence to the notion that internationalhierarchyis based on more
than differentials
in militaryand economic power. His studyalso presupposes a particulardiscourse,i.e., a social
contextwithinwhichelitestereotypes
are meaningful.
ROXANNE
LYNNDOTY
317
Appendix
[1] National SecurityCouncil. A Reportto theNational SecurityCouncilby the
ExecutiveSecretary
on "The Positionof the UnitedStateswithRespectto the
November6, 1950. (84/1)
Philippines,"
[2] National SecurityCouncil. A Reportto theNational SecurityCouncilby the
ExecutiveSecretary
on "The Positionof the UnitedStateswithRespectto the
Philippines,"
November6, 1950. (84/2)
[3] Reviewof theWorldSituation1949-1950.
[4] Memo fromSecretaryof Stateto President,April20, 1950. Regarding:Recent
Developmentsin the PhilippineSituation.
[5] Memo fromSecretaryof State to President,February2, 1950. Regarding:
RecentDevelopmentsin the PhilippineSituation.
[6] Office of Intelligence Research Report, Survey of the Philippines,
Departmentof State,April15, 1952.
[7] Glenn Craig, MilitaryGroup,JointMDAP SurveyMissionto SoutheastAsia,
September25, 1950.
[8] Semi-annual Appraisal of the Joint U.S. MilitaryAdvisoryGroup to the
Republic of the Philippines.WrittenbyJ.W. Anderson,Major General,U.S.
Army,ChiefAdvisortoJointChiefsof Staff,March25, 1950.
to
[9] CharlesOgburn,PolicyInformationOfficer,Bureau of Far EasternAffairs,
AssistantSecretaryof State for Far Eastern Affairs,Rusk, 1951. Foreign
Relations
6 (1) :7.
[10] Appraisalof the PhilippineSituationby the AmericanEmbassy,August1951.
Foreign
Relations
6 (2):1561.
[11] Memo fromAssistantSecretaryof State for Far Eastern Affairs(Rusk) to
Deputy Under Secretaryof State (Matthews),January31, 1951. Foreign
Relations
6 (1) :24.
[12] MacArthurAddressto Congress,April14, 1951,page 1114.
[13] Foreign
PolicyBulletin,
August25, 1950.
[14] Far Eastern Survey,American Instituteof Pacific Relations,by Russell H.
Fifield,Professorof Political Science, Universityof Michigan,January30,
1951.
[15] U.S. Newsand World
Report,
"Philippines:Wastevs.U.S. Aid,"January
27, 1950.
[16] Memo fromJoint Chiefs of Staff,Omar Bradley,to Secretaryof Defense,
1:1485-1489.
Relations
Johnson,September6, 1950.Foreign
Officeof Philippineand
[17] Memo fromOfficerin charge of Economic Affairs,
Relations1:1494.
SoutheastAsianAffairs,
Shohan, 1951.Foreign
[18] Memo from Charles Ogburn, Policy InformationOfficer,Bureau of Far
Rusk.
EasternAffairs,
to AssistantSecretaryof State forFar EasternAffairs,
1951.Foreign
Relations
6 (1) :7.
[19] Harold C. Hagan, U.S. House of Representatives,June
15, 1953.
[20] William0. Douglas. 1953. North
fromMalaya-Adventureon FiveFronts.New
York:Doubleday.
318
Foreign
Policy
as SocialConstruction
Relations
oftheUnitedStates6 (1):46. 1951.
[21] Foreign
[22] Secretaryof State Dean Acheson. "Crisisin Asia-An Examinationof U.S.
ofStateBulletin,
January23, 1950.
Policy."Department
[23] Memo fromJ. T. Forbes, State Group, Joint MDAP SurveyMission, to
Chairmanof theMission,September27, 1950.
ofStateBulletin15(376),
[24] "The New Republic of the Philippines."Department
September15, 1946.
ofStateBulletin,
July14, 1946.
[25] PresidentTruman,UnitedStatesDepartment
Weekly.Central Intelligence Agency, Official Current
[26] CurrentIntelligence
Intelligence,November20, 1953.
References
ACHESON,D. (1950) Address at the Universityof Californiaat Berkeley.Department
of StateBulletin,
March 27.
R. K. (1984) The Povertyof Neorealism.International
ASHLEY,
Organization
38(2):225-286.
R. K., ANDR. B. J. WALKER (1990) Reading Dissidence/Writing
ASHLEY,
the Discipline: Crisisand the
in InternationalStudies.International
StudiesQuarterly
Question of Sovereignty
34(3):367-416.
AXELROD, R., AND R. KEOHANE (1985) Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy: Strategies and
Institutions.World
Politics38:226-254.
BARTHES, R. (1974) S/Z. New York:Hill and Wang/NoondayPress.
BARTHES, R. (1987) Textual Analysisof Poe's "Valdemar."In Untying
theText,edited by R. Young.
London and New York:Routledgeand Kegan Paul.
M. G., AND M. J. SHAPIRO (1973) CognitiveProcess and Foreign Policy Decision-Making.
BONHAM,
International
StudiesQuarterly
17(2):147-173.
BONNER, R. (1987) Waltzing
witha Dictator.
New York:VintageBooks/RandomHouse.
CAMPBELL, D. (1990) Global Inscription:How ForeignPolicyConstitutesthe United States.Alternatives
15(3) :263-286.
CAMPBELL, D. (1992) Writing
U.S.Foreign
Security:
Policyand thePoliticsofIdentity.
Minneapolis:University
of MinnesotaPress.
of
CHALOUPKA, W. (1992) Knowing
Nukes:ThePoliticsand CultureoftheAtom.Minneapolis: University
MinnesotaPress.
CLEGG, S. R. (1989) Frameworks
ofPower.NewburyPark,CA and London: Sage.
A GeneralTheory
of
and a Case Study.Pittsburgh:
COTTAM, R. (1977) Foreign
PolicyMotivation:
University
Pittsburgh
Press.
CRAIG,
G. (1950) Attachmentto the MilitaryGroupJointMDAP SurveyMissionto SoutheastAsia,Army
Interim
Reporton Philippine
Islands.September25, RG330, Box 74,' Folder 000.5-333 Philippines.
In NationalArchives.
CROSS,C. B. (1991) Explanationand the Theoryof Questions.Erkenntnis
34:237-260.
CULLER,
J. (1982) OnDeconstruction.
Ithaca: CornellUniversity
Press.
A Genealogy
DERDERIAN,
New York:Basil Blackwell.
J. (1987) On Diplomacy:
ofWestern
Estrangement.
and Difference.
of Chicago Press.
TranslatedbyAlan Bass. Chicago: University
DERRIDA,J.
(1978) Writing
TranslatedbyAlan Bass. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
DERRIDA,J.
(1981) Positions.
of
translatedbyAlan Bass. Chicago: University
DERRIDA,
J. (1982) Difference.In MarginsofPhilosophy,
Chicago Press.
DESSLER,D. (1989) What's at Stake in the Agent-StructureDebate? InternationalOrganization
43:441-473.
DoTy,R. L. (1991) TheSocialConstruction
ofInternational
Hierarchy.
UnpublishedPhD thesis,University
of Minnesota,Minneapolis.
and Hermeneutics.
DREYFus,H., AND P. RABINOW (1983) MichelFoucault-BeyondStructuralism
Chicago:
of Chicago Press.
University
ESCOBAR, A. (1984) Discourse and Power in Development:Michel Foucault and the Relevance of His
Workto theThirdWorld.Alternatives
10:377-400.
Translatedby A. M. Sheridan. New York:Pantheon
FOUCAULT, M. (1972) TheArcheology
ofKnowledge.
Books.
Edited byColin Gordon. New York:PantheonBooks.
FOUCAULT, M. (1977) Power/Knowledge.
ROXANNELYNN DOTY
319
House.
of Chicago Press.
Chicago: University
and Hermeneutics.
Structuralism
Politics,edited by L. S.
Modelsin International
"OperationalCode" Belief System.In Psychological
Falkowski.Boulder:WestviewPress.
in SocialTheoy.Cambridge,U.K.: PolityPress.
Problems
GIDDENS,A. (1979) Central
Adams.
Totowa,NJ:Littlefield,
forSocialPsychology.
R. (1980) SocialBeing-A Theory
HARRE,
edited byJ.Forgas.New
HARRE,R. (1981) Rituals,Rhetoric,and Social Cognition.In Social Cognition,
York:Academic Press.
London:
and Subjectivity.
SocialRegulation,
HENRIQUES,J., et al. (1984) ChangingtheSubject-Psychology,
Methuen.
and Behaviorin SovietForeignPolicy.Pittsburgh:Universityof
HERRMANN,R. K (1985) Perceptions
Pittsburgh
Press.
R. K. (1988) The EmpiricalChallenge of the CognitiveRevolution:A StrategyforDrawing
HERRMANN,
32(2):175-203.
StudiesQuarterly
Inferencesabout Perceptions.International
In Structure
ofDecision,edited by R.
HOLSTI, 0. (1976) Foreign PolicyFormationViewed Cognitively.
Press.
Axelrod.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
JACKSON,R. H., AND C. G. ROSBERG (1987) Quasi-States,Dual Regimes, and Neoclassical Theory:
41 (4):519-549.
Organization
and the ThirdWorld.International
InternationalJurisprudence
Politics.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
in International
and Misperception
JERVIS,R. (1976) Perception
Press.
JOHNSTON,D. S. (1991) Constructingthe Peripheryin Modern Global Politics.In TheNewInternational
edited byC. Murphyand R. Tooze. Boulder: LynneRienner.
PoliticalEconomy,
KARNow,S. (1989) In OurImage.New York: Random House.
A StudyofPeasantRevoltin thePhilippines.Berkeley,Los
KERKVLIET,B. J. (1977) The Huk Rebellion.
Angeles, and London: Universityof California Press.
KRATOCHWILL,
F., ANDJ. G. RUGGIE (1986) InternationalOrganizationas an Artof the State:A Regime
40(4):753-776.
Organization
Critique.International
A Psychological
Explanation.Princeton: Princeton
LARSON, D. W. (1985) Originsof Containment:
UniversityPress.
ofSocialExplanation.Boulder:WestviewPress.
LITrLE, D. (1991) Varieties
2nd Session,
July5.
Record,79thCongress,
MAcARTHUR,D. (1946) Congressional
July2.
2ndSession,
Record,79thCongress,
McDONOUGH, G. L. (1946) Congressional
in the EarlyNineteenthCentury.Unpublishedpaper.
and Subjectivity
MILLIKEN,J.
(1990) Sovereignty
MILLIKEN,J.,AND D. SYLVAN(1991) SoftBodies, Hard Targets,and Chic Theories: U.S. BombingPolicy
Relations,edited by J.
in Indochina. In Gender,Race, and Empire:A New Field of International
Milliken,K. Fierke,and D. Sylvan.
Press.
ofAfrica.Bloomingtonand Indianapolis:Indiana University
MUDIMBE,V. Y. (1988) TheInvention
Programin Outline.New York:
MYRDAL,G. (1970) The Challengeof WorldPoverty-AWorldAnti-Poverty
VintageBooks/RandomHouse.
Studies Quarterly
ONUF, N., AND F. F. KLINK (1989) Anarchy,Authority,and Rule. International
33(2):149-175.
of South
Columbia: University
Administration's
QuestforGlobalCommunity.
ROSATI,J. (1987) The Carter
Carolina Press.
New York: Vintage Books/Random House.
SAID,E. (1978) Orientalism.
Neocolonialism,
ofColonialism,
Reader-A Histary
SCHIRMER,D. B., ANDS. R. SHALOM (1987) ThePhilippines
Boston:South End Press.
Dictatorship,
and Resistance.
Policy.Princeton:Princeton
SHAFER,D. M. (1988) DeadlyParadigms-TheFailureofU.S. Counterinsurgency
Press.
University
Unpublished PhD
SHALOM, S. R. (1976) U.S.-PhilippineRelations:A Study in Neo-Colonialism.
dissertation,
BostonUniversity.
320
Asia
SHALOM,S. R. (1977) Counter-Insurgencyin the Philippines. Journal of Contemporary
17(2):153-177.
edited byM.
SHAPIRO,M. (1984) LiteraryProductionas a PoliticizingPractice.In Languageand Politics,
Shapiro.New York:New YorkUniversity
Press.
SHAPIRO, M. (1988) ThePoliticsofRepresentation-Writing
Practices
in Biography,
Photography,
and Political
Analysis.Madison: University
ofWisconsinPress.
In International
SHAPIRO, M. (1989) RepresentingWorld Politics:The Sports/WarIntertext.
Intertextual
Relations,
edited byJ.Der Derian and M. Shapiro. Lexington,MA: D.C. Heath/LexingtonBooks.
SHAPIRO, M., J. G. M. BONHAM, AND D. HERADSTVEIT (1988) A Discursive Practices Approach to
CollectiveDecision-making.International
StudiesQuarterly
32 (4):397-419.
New Yorkand Oxford:OxfordUniversity
Press.
SILVERMAN, K. (1983) TheSubject
ofSemiotics.
to
on Human Affairs-With
SPROUT, H., AND M. SPROUT (1965) TheEcological
Perspective
SpecialReference
International
Politics.Princeton:PrincetonUniversity
Press.
SYLVAN,D., AND B. GLASSNER
(1985) A RationalistMethodology
for the Social Sciences.Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
WALKER, S. G. (1977) The Interface between Beliefs and Behavior. Journalof Conflict
Resolution
21(1):129-168.
WALKER, S. G. (1990) Self and Other in the Analysisof Foreign Policy.Paper presentedat the annual
meetingof the InternationalSocietyof PoliticalPsychology,
July11-15, Washington,D.C.
WEBER, C. L. (1990) RepresentingDebt: PeruvianPresidentsBalaunde's and Garcia's Reading/Writing
of PeruvianDebt. International
StudiesQuarterly
34(3):353-365.
Interventionin the Mexican
WEBER, C. L. (1992) WritingSovereignIdentities:WilsonAdministration
Revolution.Alternatives
17(3) :313-337.
WELCH, R. E. (1984) America's Philippine Policy in the Quirino Years (1948-1953): A Study in
onPhilippine-American
an Empire:NewPerspectives
Patron-ClientDiplomacy.In Reappraising
History,
edited byP. W. Stanley.Cambridge:HarvardUniversity
Press.
WENDT, A. (1987) The Agent-Structure
Problem.International
Organization
41(3) :335-371.
WENDT, A. (1992) AnarchyIs WhatStatesMake of It. International
Organization
46(2):391-425.
Other
References
Record.79th Congress,2d session (July2, 5, 1946) Speeches byRep. JohnW. McCormick
Congressional
of Massachusettsand Rep. Gordon L. McDonough of Californiain the House.
Current
Intelligence
Weekly.
(November20, 1953) CIA, Officeof CurrentIntelligence.OCI no. 1026.
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL. (November6, 1950) A Report
totheNationalSecurity
CouncilbytheExecutive
" (NSC84/1) Washington,
on "ThePositionoftheUnitedStateszvith
Secretary
RespecttothePhilippines.
D.C.
NewYorkTimes.(June5, 1950) "PhilippineLeague AsksFighton Reds."
NewYorkTimes.(June11, 1950) "U.S. EnvoyEases FilipinoConcern.
Reviewof theWorldSituation1949-1950. U.S. Senate, 81st Congress, 1st and 2d sessions. Historical
Series.Washington,DC: GovernmentPrintingOffice.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (1950) ForeignRelationsof the UnitedStates,vol. 6. Washington,DC:
GovernmentPrintingOffice.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (1951) ForeignRelationsoftheUnitedStates,vol. 6, parts 1, 2. Washington,
DC: GovernmentPrintingOffice.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. (1952-1954) Foreign
RelationsoftheUnitedStates,
vol. 12, part 1. Washington,
DC: GovernmentPrintingOffice.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH. (1950) TheHukbalahap.Report#5209.
Washington,DC: GovernmentPrintingOffice.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE RESEARCH. (1952) A Surveyof thePhilippines.
Background
Information
forthe"USIE Country
Plan forthePhilippines.
Washington,DC: Government
PrintingOffice.