Thinking outside the Archive Box: The strange case of the 'Countermeasures for Communism in the Philippines' file
Georgia Comte
The University of Melbourne archives are in and of themselves a discursive space. The material stored within it has the power to construct discourse at the behest of the historian, to reveal discourse, while being essentially constituted by discourses around collection and preservation practices.[1] The treatment of these resources, in the words of Antoinette Burton, as “arbiters of truth” grants power to the narrative constructed by these various discourses.[2] In this case, that impact is somewhat ambiguous. The present exercise emphasises the power of the archive to control historical narrative based on collection and filing practices. The documents found within the file “Philippines – Countermeasures & Prospects” [sic] (fig.1) appeared completely divorced of their original context. They were located within the Una Porter box, but did not appear on the archive listing, nor could the archivist locate their provenance. This posed a unique challenge, and with it rose many questions regarding the reliability of these documents, their original acquisition, and their purpose. Although the material was already regarded with a high degree of suspicion, and its ability to illuminate historical realities had been relegated to conjecture, it is a prime example of the power archival practice wields in the capacity of scholars to develop narratives of historical truth.
The existence of this file within the archive indicated that the contents were, at some time or other, considered to be valuable. Their cursive annotations, while betraying few clues, at least revealed the year and area of interest. Whether these notes were made by a previous archivist, or else by the original owner, was unclear (fig. 2). There was reason to suppose these may have had some relevance to Una Porter, as she was active in the Asia-Pacific at this time, though this is circumstantial evidence at best, and to accept this assumption would be to make a certain ‘truth claim’ which is not substantiated by the archive listing. Furthermore, Una Porter would presumably not have the level of clearance to access ‘secret’ files regarding such delicate anti-communist policy.
The story that initially unfolded, if these documents were considered authentic representations of Australian concerns around communism in the Asia-Pacific, seemed to reflect the anti-communist undertones present in Australian foreign policy that was most emphatic under Sir Robert Menzies.[3] Although there was little explicit evidence to indicate that these documents were indeed a reflection of Australian policy, the initial assumption was that they were most likely acquired for international relations purposes. The year pencilled at the top of the second of three purportedly ‘secret’ documents detailing the threat of communist groups against the stability of the Philippines is marked “Dec 1966” [sic] (fig.2). Although the other documents do not necessarily include a date, the year 1966 is the most likely for these as well. This was an assumption made in part based on their being stored together, though it was also one drawn from the content of each document. The documents themselves do not mention any periods beyond 1966, nor do they mention any of the key anti-communist tactics instituted by President Ferdinand Marcos, which intensified in the 1970s to institute an increasingly authoritarian regime.[4] They do, however, make frequent reference to the ‘Huks’ and the ‘PKP’, both of which were increasing in activity at this time.[5]
Based on these conclusions, it did not seem wholly unreasonable to suppose that these documents were indeed related to 1966 and connected to Australian relations with the Philippines. Australia’s involvement with the Philippines and the wider Asian-Pacific region increased substantially in peacetime following the Second World War.[6] From 1954 when Australia and the Philippines became a signatories of the Southeast Asia Collective Defence treaty, signed in Manilla, a slew of latent anti-communist policy evolved.[7] In 1966 both Australia and the Philippines became members of the Asian and Pacific Council (ASPAC) which was formed by the Republic of Korea.[8] Furthermore, these documents date to the year before formation of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) which Australia was extensively involved with.[9] The political interaction between Australia and the Philippines at this time, especially in relation to the threat of communism, suggested that these documents were likely acquired in relation to these diplomatic dealings. Although they are written in English, and therefore intended for an English-speaking audience, one such excerpt from the document refers to the people of the Philippines as “our” people, which suggested the document may have been distributed by a Philippine authority.
These were the initial extrapolations drawn from the documents in isolation, with only the material of the documents themselves to build a historically feasible story around. Although it could be argued that all history is an exercise of narrative construction, this was, from its inception, a speculative attempt to locate the historical ‘truth’ in a decontextualized file. Any assumption of its ability to purport a historical truth had to be based on its mere existence. However, another student working on W.G Smith's correspondence files, which constitute a part of the “Institute of Social Order” archival materials, determined that it belonged in the third box of that collection. The Institute of Social Order (ISO), along with the Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM) were instrumental in attempts to rebuild the Philippine rural countryside from 1947 to 1972, during a period of US-lead anti-Communist policy.[10] In 1953, Church laypeople associated with the ISO helped to form the initially anti-communist Federation of Free Farmers (FFF) in order to facilitate land redistribution and peaceful farming cooperatives. [11] Given the history of the ISO’s involvement with anti-communist movements in the Philippines, it is far more logical that they obtained the document as part of an ongoing effort to support rural farmers, who are among the most frequently referenced social groups at risk throughout.
Naturally, this substantially changed not only the context of these documents, but also the story the content revealed. As historians working with archival material, such mishaps can drastically affect our ability to tell accurate, ‘truthful’ stories about historical events. The way in which the material is stored and presented has an enormous effect on the historian’s capacity to make ‘truth claims.’ When working with incomplete historical data, there is always a chance that the conclusion drawn will be uncertain, or misleading. In this case, the mistaken placement of the ‘Countermeasures’ document in the Una Porter box drastically changed its authority and voice. The story of this document is not only that of a rich repository of historical information, but also an illustration of the capacity for archival practices to shape historical narratives.
[1] David Lowenthal, “Archives, Heritage, and History,” In Archives, Documentation, and Institutions of Social Memory: Essays from the Sawyer Seminar Book, editor Francis X. Blouin Jr., William G. Rosenberg. (Michigan: University of Michigan Press. 2006) 193-194.
[2] Antoinette Burton, Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History. (Durham: Duke University Press, 2006.) 2.
[3] Judith Brett, “The Menzies Era, 1950–66.” In The Cambridge History of Australia, edited by Alison Bashford and Stuart Macintyre, 112–34. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013.) 120.
[4] Kathleen Weekley, “The National or the Social? Problems of Nation-Building in Post-World War II Philippines.” Third World Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 1, (2006): 85-100. 90.; Robert A. Manning, “The Philippines Crisis,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 65, no.2 (1984): 392-410. 92.
[5] Angel Rabasa, John Gordon, Peter Chalk, Audra K. Grant, K. Scott McMahon, Stephanie Pezard, Caroline Reilly, David Ucko, and S. Rebecca Zimmerman. "The Philippines." In From Insurgency to Stability: Volume II: Insights from Selected Case Studies, 9-40. (New York: RAND Corporation, 2011.) 14-15.; Richard J. Kessler, "Origins of the Communist Party of the Philippines." In Rebellion and Repression in the Philippines, 28-51. (London: Yale University Press, 1989.) 35.; Portia L. Reyes, "Claiming History: Memoirs of the Struggle against Ferdinand Marcos’s Martial Law Regime in the Philippines." Sojourn: Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia vol. 33, no. 2 (2018): 457-98.
[6] Frank Frost, "Australia and the Origins of ASEAN (1967–1975)." In Engaging the Neighbours: Australia and ASEAN since 1974, 7-34. (Melbourne: ANU Press, 2016.) Van Der Kroef, Justus M. "Philippine Communism and the Chinese." The China Quarterly, no. 30 (1967): 115-48. 12-14.
[7] Frost, "Australia and the Origins of ASEAN (1967–1975)." 12.
[8] Frost, "Australia and the Origins of ASEAN (1967–1975)." 13.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Raymond L Bryant, "Doing “Good” in the Philippines." In Nongovernmental Organizations in Environmental Struggles: Politics and the Making of Moral Capital in the Philippines, 61-81. (London: Yale University Press, 2005.) 63.
[11] Greg Bankoff, "‘For the Good of the Barrio’: Community Associations and the State in the Rural Philippines 1935-1965." In Beyond Empire and Nation: The Decolonization of African and Asian Societies, 1930s-1970s, edited by Boagaerts Els and Raben Remco, 167-88. (New York: Brill, 2012.) 176.