September 21 from a Foreign Perspective

US President Franklin D. Roosevelt called December 7, 1941, the day Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, a “date that will live in infamy.” September 21, 1972, for most Filipinos, is the one date in Philippine history that still generates a lot of discussion and controversies, especially since the victory of President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. in the 2022 elections. The son of the man (who made September 21 infamous) winning the election continues not to sit well with many in Philippine society.

We’re used to reading about the narrative given by our fellow Filipinos. Today, let’s explore martial rule from the perspective and writings of foreigners. In various New York Times articles after the declaration of Martial Law, immediately after September 21, Marcos took control of everything. And while Foreign Affairs Secretary Carlos P. Romulo said that Marcos informed him that the situation was calm and some persons were held to “protect them from possible harm from insurgents”, the reality was thousands were detained simply for being against the government. While Filipinos were distrustful of President Marcos’ reasoning behind the declaration, the majority were still hoping that he would be able to fulfill his many promises to improve the country and would forgive him for all his faults if he were able to “fix things” and “succeed in what he promised.”

In the early days, there supposedly was a “general feeling of relief” among the population. So much so that there was “disregard into which democracy had fallen as reflected by the general apathy that greeted the jailing without charges and without time limit of Marcos’s outspoken opponents and the disappearance of the free press.” On the other hand, the foreign diplomats and intelligence officials, while believing that the communists were indeed a real problem, didn’t see them as an imminent threat.

"Martial law in the Philippines was nothing but a matter of regime survival," wrote David Wurfel, a political scientist interested in agrarian policy and political development in East and Southeast Asia, in 1977. He wrote that all the violence in 1969 was Marcos's idea to win reelection and, ultimately, lay the foundation for the justification of martial law. Man Mohini Kaul, a professor for Indo-Pacific Studies, wrote in 1978 that while the rest of the country was starving and the economy was in shambles, the Marcoses continued to live in splendor and were “unmindful of the mass poverty surrounding them.” One of his observations was that most government officials were disinclined to bring any change to the status quo while the landlords were obstructing any attempt at reforming the system.

Interestingly, in a September 23, 1972 memorandum for US President Richard Nixon, the US government: 1.) Estimated that the Filipinos will react with resigned acceptance after the initial shock and that criticism of Marcos’ action would diminish eventually; 2.) Believed that in the short term, martial law posed no direct serious problems for US security and economic relations with the Philippines and that the climate for individual business operations might even improve; and 3.) Was of the opinion that giving their support to Marcos would make him appreciate the gesture and result in his continued cooperation in giving access to the US bases in the Philippines.

Reading about September 21 from a foreign perspective is equally intriguing. Whatever one's opinion of martial law, some issues can never be ignored. People were arrested, tortured, and vanished during the nine years martial law was in effect. History is the best teacher because it allows us to see things that already happened. If we are smart, we should learn from it instead of making excuses for things that happened in the past.