Anticipating the visit of the prominent Chicago architect and
planner Daniel Burnham to the Philippines, the observations
of W. Cameron Forbes, then freshly appointed to the (US)
Philippine Commission as secretary of commerce and police,
reflected pride in perceived American achievements in the
archipelago, but also traces of the bleaker realities of colonial life in the
new US tropical empire, despite Forbes's bracing technocratic optimism.
Orchestrated by Forbes together with the US secretary of war (and former
Philippine governor-general) William Howard Taft to produce a major
plan of proposed improvements for the capital in Manila—along with an
original plan for the town of Baguio, the piney Cordillera resort that the
Philippine Commission (1903a) had already declared the “summer capital
of the Archipelago”—Burnham's visit to the Philippines was meant to
address at least some of the problems of empire by aesthetic means, through
interventions in landscape and built environment. If “things were in a
depressed condition,” for Forbes (1904a, 2) and the Insular Government,1
the
Burnham plans would uplift them (cf. Morley 2016), meanwhile leaving an
enduring stamp—and perhaps entrenching US geopolitical and economic
interests—in the dual Philippine capitals.
Burnham was by this time the celebrated master planner of Chicago's
1893 “White City” World's Columbian Exposition and was also well
kirsch / Burnham Plans and US Landscape Imperialism 317
known for the skyscraping and Beaux-Arts achievements of his Chicago
architectural firm, Burnham and Root. Concurrently with the Philippine
projects, Burnham was contributing or had recently contributed to major
City Beautiful planning efforts that included Cleveland, San Francisco, and
Washington, DC, later followed by his enduring 1909 plan of Chicago. In
these designs Burnham had taken lessons from the blend of monumental
neoclassicism, the emerging field of landscape architecture, and
circumscribed public spaces that had been “crowd-tested” in the temporary,
festival spaces of the White City, for developing more or less permanent
projects of urban landscape transformation (Hines 1979; Smith 2006; Ellem
2014; Vernon 2014). Given this track record in the production of spectacular
urban spaces, Burnham's involvement in the American effort to remodel
Manila was a matter of prestige for the Insular Government, in particular for
Forbes, the Boston Brahmin grandson of Ralph Waldo Emerson, who had
drawn on his own networks of cultural capital to enlist Burnham (Hines 1979,
197–216). The opportunity to mark the emergence of an American empire
in tropical Asia was evidently also attractive for Burnham, who like Forbes
easily adopted the Republican aura of the reluctant—or not so reluctant—
imperialist. When Forbes, prior to his own departure for Manila in July 1904,
had asked the architect's advice on who to hire for the Manila and Baguio
projects after Frederic Law Olmsted proved unavailable, Burnham, perhaps
divining Forbes's intentions, recommended himself.
Burnham steamed into Manila Bay with a designer from his firm, the
architect Pierce Anderson, on 7 December 1904. The two remained in the
Philippines for about six weeks, carrying out site visits around Manila and
initiating work on the plans; meanwhile Burnham was feted by US Insular
officials and military leaders. Burnham and Anderson also journeyed with
Forbes to Baguio, located 233 kilometers north of Manila, by train, steam, and
horseback—and roughly 1,540 meters up from sea level—where 10 square
miles (26 square kilometers) had just been set aside by the commission within
which the summer capital plan was to take shape. The “Plan of Proposed
Improvements” for Manila (Burnham and Anderson 1906), submitted to
Congress from Chicago in June 1905, would situate Manila, the Spanish
colonial capital since 1571, within an evolving American planning tradition
at a moment when North American urban spaces were themselves being
intensively reconstructed. In the Philippines, as I argue in this article, the
Burnham plans would also serve to place landscape aesthetics squarely on the
318 Pshev?65, no. 3 (2017)
agenda of US cultural imperialism and geopolitics. The Manila plan would
present, alongside a bayfront landscape enhanced for elite consumption,
at least a quasi-democratic distribution of City Beautiful public spaces and
greenways. However, the continuing investment in Baguio—which required
construction and maintenance of a road ascending 5,000 feet by steep
switchbacks to a then largely American enclave of mountain cottages, playing
fields, sanitarium, and soon Forbes's own magnificent Topside residence, a
modern stone bungalow perched majestically on a ridge overlooking Baguio
and surrounding mountains and valleys, complete with stables, gardens, and
guest quarters—appeared as singularly tone-deaf to local conditions. On the
heels of the decade of devastating warfare, famine, and disease to which
Forbes (1904a) referred in his 29 August letter, the high costs of building
the summer capital at Baguio (and providing access to it) would open the
commission to criticism on both sides of the Pacific.
Taking Burnham's 1904–1905 visit to the Philippines as a starting
point, this article examines the efforts to extend American empire through
landscape, focusing on aesthetic dimensions or what might be called
a landscape vision of US empire. Its purpose is to understand how the
ideological contradictions of the imperial moment—for the US, between
democracy and empire, liberator and subjugator (Kirsch 2011)—were built
into American colonial spaces, sometimes brutally, but sometimes through
aesthetic means in the formation of setting and landscape.2
As proposed
interventions in landscape, the Burnham plans offer glimpses of the linked
spatial and symbolic strategies for structuring social encounters and everyday
relations of power in the Philippines—or in the case of Baguio, for attempting
literally to rise above them. But the story also illustrates the precariousness
of landscape—and empire—as spatial strategies of power. Before we rejoin
Burnham and Anderson on Manila Bay in 1904, in the next section it is
necessary to turn briefly to the convergence of landscape and aesthetics,
which was a key premise of Burnham and Anderson's work, and to situate the
aesthetic landscape as an element of US imperialism within broader efforts
to reproduce empire over time in the Philippines through the production of
colonial spaces and subjectivities.
The Aesthetic Landscape
Landscape is commonly taken to mean the (usually scenic) setting for
human experience, or the representation of such settings in painting and
kirsch / Burnham Plans and US Landscape Imperialism 319
other visual arts.3
In traditional geographical research, landscape emerged
as a key morphological concept describing lands as shaped by both nature
and human practices into differentiated regional settings, each with a
distinctive regional economy and “look of the land” (Sauer 1925; Vidal de la
Blache 1908). Because the highly visualized convergences of aesthetics and
landscape, which appear as perfectly “natural,” were historically developed,
a history of the landscape idea can also be read in part in the history of
aesthetics; their meanings are practically intertwined.
Kant interpreted the field of aesthetics from classical Greek roots
as constituting a specialized engagement with the material world as
apprehended by the senses, a science of sense perception (Williams 1983,
31). By the mid-nineteenth century, the term was gaining currency in English
in more explicit connection with visual appearance and its human effects,
especially in relation to beauty and the arts (Williams 1983). Landscape
as a site for sensory apprehension and the experience of beauty, grandeur,
and symbolic elements emerged as a conceptual category alongside the
professionalization of landscape aesthetics and expertise. Perhaps initially
through landscape painting, the Europeans “represented their world as a
source of aesthetic enjoyment—as landscape” (Cosgrove 1998, 1, italics
added). The Europeans also extended the aesthetic landscape ideal, evoking
beauty, order, and harmony into the material environment of the landscape
“itself” in landed estates and gardens, public parks, and urban architecture
(Cosgrove and Daniels 1988). It was an aesthetic sensibility of landscape that
Burnham had cultivated in his own planning efforts (Hines 1972), largely in
connection with the new discipline of landscape or landscape architecture
in late–nineteenth-century North America (most prominently reflected in
Olmstead's work) and its incorporation into City Beautiful urban planning.
For Denis Cosgrove (1998), taking landscape as a historically constructed
way of seeing, rather than as a received concept in cultural and historical
geography, helped to open the aesthetic landscape to a potent critique of
ideology. Thus were the Palladian landscapes of the Veneto “intended to
serve the purpose of reflecting back to the powerful viewer, at ease in his villa,
the image of a controlled and well-ordered, productive and relaxed world
wherein serious matters are laid aside” (ibid., 24). Whether painted on canvas
or sculpted into the material environment, aesthetic landscapes have served
at times to erase the conditions of their own production, or to naturalize a
particular “order of things,” especially at moments of political (territorial) or
320 Pshev?65, no. 3 (2017)
property transition (cf. Mitchell 1996). The Burnham plans for Manila and
Baguio would offer cover, respectively, for both kinds of transition, setting
the tone for a US landscape imperialism that would become more widely
distributed across the Philippines in the following decade (cf. Morley
2016). To recognize the political dimensions of landscape aesthetics is not,
of course, to reject the value of aesthetics in built environments, to reduce
the stakes of urban planning to their aesthetic dimensions, nor even to
foreclose on the possibilities of social uplift through beautification that
animated City Beautiful planners. What I do wish to emphasize, however,
by way of a short history of the making of plans, is the prioritization of
aesthetics by an influential regime of Insular state actors who became
deeply invested in what might be called a landscape vision of US empire
in the Philippines.
In telling this story, this article offers an engagement with social
formation and symbolic landscape (Cosgrove 1998) in the context of early
US colonial state interventions in the Philippines and attempts to read
these landscapes “through” Lefebvrian categories of spatial production and
state theory (Lefebvre 1991, 2009; cf. Lico 2007).4
Lefebvre understood
space as a multifaceted product of contested social relations; similarly
he saw the state itself as existing in persistent tension with social forces
that threatened to undermine it at weak points, withering away an always
precarious authority. This authority was especially unstable in colonial and
imperial contexts in which the state lacked legitimacy. Hence, for Gerard
Lico (2007, 244), “The colonial landscape is not simply a palimpsest
reflecting asymmetric power relations undergirding colonial society; it is
also a terrain of discipline and resistance.” Reading the aesthetic landscape
through Lefebvrian categories allows us to examine the Burnham plans
not only as represented spaces—the plans themselves—or in terms of their
concrete outcomes (and contemporary traces) in the physical landscape,
but also as moments in a process of seeing, interpreting, and reconstructing
spaces that were intended to reflect the interests and values of those who
produced them. It compels us, in this context, to be attuned to registers
of beauty and delight that were central to their production and function
as landscapes. But while landscapes may be designed as naturalizing or
aggrandizing symbolic spaces, their meanings, let alone their capacities
for channeling social behavior, are not inherently stable, even though
landscape iconography has been fashioned classically to evoke a sense of
kirsch / Burnham Plans and US Landscape Imperialism 321
permanence or timelessness (Gottmann 1952). Hence, the stabilization of
meaning in form is precisely the cultural work—and aesthetic politics—
that produced landscapes are intended to achieve (Cosgrove and Daniels
1988; Mitchell 1996; Olwig 2002).
In the Philippines efforts to create a distinctively American colonial
landscape at the start of the twentieth century, while also creating a set of
landscapes distinctly for Americans, were prioritized by a small “aesthetic
regime” of elite Insular state actors as pivotal problems of Philippine
governance, an essential cultural politics of landscape and built environment.
The fledgling summer capital at Baguio, located near the site of an earlier
Spanish Army garrison and sanitarium at La Trinidad (Worcester 1914/2004;
Reed 1999; Brody 2010), most closely embodied this aesthetic. Also inspired
by the British “hill station” at Simla, India, advocates deemed a summer
health resort at Baguio to be vital for Americans living in the tropics as a
space not only for surviving the hardships of colonial life in the tropics, but
also for enjoying its beauty and pleasures, signaling the aesthetic registers
on which the American empire was to be experienced by its agents abroad.5
To understand how the Burnham plans were produced and in different
ways realized in the Philippine landscape, this article turns more closely
to the relations through which the political and aesthetic project of US
landscape imperialism was forged, including intimate, embodied relations
of cultural authority, race, nation, class, and gender, and particular kinds
of relationships, like friendship, in which meaning, information, and
“common sense” were easily shared. Hence, as a means of drawing together
the intimate with the imperial and geopolitical, the next section introduces
a rudimentary “regime theory” of agency in the production of colonial
state spaces, situating Burnham's visit under the umbrella of a wider set of
spatial transformations, including port, road, and railroad expansion and the
refashioning of civic and market spaces.
Forbes, William Cameron. 1904a. Letter to Daniel H. Burnham, 29 Aug. Box 1, FF 31. Daniel H.
Burnham Collection, Ryerson and Burnham Archives, Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
———. 1904b. Journal, 4 Sept. Journals of W. Cameron Forbes (JWCF), vol. 1. W. Cameron Forbes
Papers, MS Am 1365. Houghton Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
———. 1904c. Journal, 5 Sept. JWCF, vol. 1. W. Cameron Forbes Papers, MS Am 1365. Houghton
Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
———. 1904d. Journal, 17 Sept. JWCF, vol. 1. W. Cameron Forbes Papers, MS Am 1365. Houghton
Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
———. 1904e. Journal, 8 Dec. JWCF, vol. 1. W. Cameron Forbes Papers, MS Am 1365. Houghton
Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
———. 1904f. Journal, 22 Dec. JWCF, vol. 1. W. Cameron Forbes Papers, MS Am 1365. Houghton
Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
354 Pshev?65, no. 3 (2017)
———. 1904g. Journal, 26 Dec. JWCF, vol. 1. W. Cameron Forbes Papers, MS Am 1365. Houghton
Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
———. 1905a. Journal, 1 Jan. JWCF, vol. 1. W. Cameron Forbes Papers, MS Am 1365. Houghton
Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
———. 1905b. Journal, 8 Jan. JWCF, vol. 1. W. Cameron Forbes Papers, MS Am 1365. Houghton
Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
———. 1905c. Journal, 3 Feb. JWCF, vol. 1. W. Cameron Forbes Papers, MS Am 1365. Houghton
Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
———. 1905d. Journal, 1 May. JWCF, vol. 1. W. Cameron Forbes Papers, MS Am 1365. Houghton
Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
———. 1905e. Journal, 26 June. JWCF, vol. 1. W. Cameron Forbes Papers, MS Am 1365. Houghton
Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
———. 1905f. Journal, 5 Sept. JWCF, vol. 1. W. Cameron Forbes Papers, MS Am 1365. Houghton
Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
———. 1906a. Journal, 5 May. JWCF, vol. 2. W. Cameron Forbes Papers, MS Am 1365. Houghton
Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
———. 1906b. Journal, 26 May. JWCF, vol. 2. W. Cameron Forbes Papers, MS Am 1365. Houghton
Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
———. 1907. Journal, 28 April. JWCF, vol. 2. W. Cameron Forbes Papers, MS Am 1365. Houghton
Library, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
———. 1930a. Journals of William Cameron Forbes (JWCF), v
An ambassador is an official envoy, especially a high-ranking diplomat who represents a state and is usually accredited to another sovereign state or to an international organization as the resident representative of their own government or sovereign or appointed for a special and often temporary diplomatic assignment.[1] The word is also used informally for people who are known, without national appointment, to represent certain professions, activities and fields of endeavor, such as sales.
An ambassador is the ranking government representative stationed in a foreign capital or country. The host country typically allows the ambassador control of specific territory called an embassy, whose territory, staff, and vehicles are generally afforded diplomatic immunity in the host country. Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, an ambassador has the highest diplomatic rank. Countries may choose to maintain diplomatic relations at a lower level by appointing a chargé daffaires in place of an ambassador.
The equivalent to an ambassador exchanged among members of the Commonwealth of Nations are known as High Commissioners. The ambassadors of the Holy See are known as Papal or Apostolic Nuncios.
Contents
1Etymology
2Purposes
2.1Protect citizens
2.2Support prosperity
2.3Work for peace
3Rise of modern diplomacy
4Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary
5Ambassador-at-large
6Title
7Non-diplomatic ambassadorships
8See also
9References
10Bibliography
11External links
Etymology
The term is derived from Middle English ambassadour, Anglo-French ambassateur; akin to Old High German ambaht, "service". The first known usage of the term was recorded around the 14th century.[1]
Purposes
The foreign government to which an ambassador is assigned must first approve the person. In some cases, the foreign government might reverse its approval by declaring the diplomat a persona non grata, i.e. an unacceptable person. This kind of declaration usually results in recalling the ambassador to their home nation. In accordance with the Congress of Vienna of 1815 and the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the ambassador and embassy staff are granted diplomatic immunity and personal safety while living abroad.[2][3]
Protect citizens
Due to the advent of modern technologies, todays world is a much smaller place in relative terms. With this in mind, it is considered important that the nations of the world have at least a small staff living in foreign capitals in order to aid travelers and visitors from their home nation. As an officer of the foreign service, an ambassador is expected to protect the citizens of their home country in the host country.[4][3]
Support prosperity
Another result of the increase in foreign travel is the growth of trade between nations. For most countries, the national economy is now part of the global economy. This means increased opportunities to sell and trade with other nations. When two nations are conducting a trade, it is usually advantageous to both parties to have an ambassador and perhaps a small staff living in the other land, where they act as an intermediary between cooperative businesses.[4][3]
Work for peace
One of the cornerstones of foreign diplomatic missions is to work for peace. This task can grow into a fight against international terrorism, the drug trade, international bribery, and human trafficking. Ambassadors help stop these acts, helping people across the globe. These activities are important and sensitive and are usually carried out in coordination with the Defense Ministry of the state (or the Defense Department in the U.S.) and the head of the nation.[4][3]
Rise of modern diplomacy
Arrival of the English Ambassadors by Vittore Carpaccio, painted between 1495 and 1500—though ostensibly part of a series of paintings on the life of Saint Ursula, this actually depicts the developing diplomatic practices of the Republic of Venice in the painters own time
Before taking office, an ambassadors credentials must be accepted, such as when South African Ambassador Harry Schwarz handed his credentials to U.S. President George H. W. Bush in 1991.
The rise of the modern diplomatic system was a product of the Italian Renaissance (from around AD 1300). The use of ambassadors became a political strategy in Italy during the 15th century. The political changes in Italy altered the role of ambassadors in diplomatic affairs. Because many of the states in Italy were small, they were particularly vulnerable to larger states. The ambassador system was used to disperse information and to protect the more vulnerable states.
This practice then spread to Europe during the Italian Wars. The use and creation of ambassadors during the 15th century in Italy has had long-term effects on Europe and, in turn, the worlds diplomatic and political progression. Europe still uses the same terms of ambassador rights as they had established in the 16th century, concerning the rights of the ambassadors in host countries as well as the proper diplomatic procedures. An ambassador was used as a representative of the state in which they are from to negotiate and disseminate information in order to keep peace and establish relationships with other states. This attempt was employed in the effort to maintain peaceful relations with nations and make alliances during difficult times.
The use of ambassadors today is widespread. States and non-state actors use diplomatic representatives to deal with any problems that occur within the international system. Ambassadors now normally live overseas or within the country to which it is assigned for long periods of time so that they are acquainted with the culture and local people. This way they are more politically effective and trusted, enabling them to accomplish goals that their host country desires.
Ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary
Maria-Pia Kothbauer, Princess of Liechtenstein and ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary to the Czech Republic, presenting her credentials to Václav Klaus
The Congress of Vienna of 1815 formalized the system of diplomatic rank under international law, distinguishing between three hierarchical descending categories of diplomatic representatives: full ambassadors (including legates or nuntii), accredited to heads of state; envoys or ministers, who were also accredited to heads of state; and finally chargés d'affaires, who were accredited to minister of foreign affairs.[5]
The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 formalized the system and is the set of international legislation in use nowadays. According to it, ambassadors are diplomats of the highest rank, formally representing their head of state, with plenipotentiary powers (i.e. full authority to represent the government). In modern usage, most ambassadors on foreign postings as head of mission carry the full title of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. The distinction between extraordinary and ordinary ambassadors was common when not all ambassadors resided in the country to which they are assigned, often serving only for a specific purpose or mission.[6]
The ambassador extraordinary and plenipotentiary being historically regarded as the personal representative of the sovereign, the custom of dispatching ambassadors to the head of state rather than the government has persisted. For example, ambassadors to and from the United Kingdom are accredited to or from the Royal Court of St Jamess. Ambassadors hold the highest diplomatic rank and have precedence over chargés daffaires, who are accredited by the foreign minister. Ambassadors also outranked envoys until the 1960s, when the last legations were upgraded to embassies.
Because members of the Commonwealth of Nations have or had a common head of state, they do not exchange ambassadors, but instead have High Commissioners, who represent the government, rather than the head of state. The diplomat representing the Holy See is titled a nuncio. In diplomatic usage, both the high commissioner and nuncio are considered equivalent in rank and role to an ambassador. Resident Coordinators within the United Nations system are accredited to the Head of State and have the same rank as ambassador.
Ambassadors carry formal letters of credence from their head of state, addressed to the host countrys head of state. Because many Commonwealth countries have the same head of state, the accreditation of a High Commissioner is in the form of a simple and often informal letter of introduction from one head of government (Prime Minister) to that of another. The difference in accreditation is also reflected in the formal titles of envoys to foreign and Commonwealth states: e.g., British High Commissioners are formally titled "The High Commissioner for Her Majestys Government in the United Kingdom", whereas British Ambassadors to foreign countries are known as "Her Britannic Majestys Ambassador".[citation needed]
Ambassador-at-large
Main article: Ambassador-at-large
An ambassador-at-large is a diplomat of the highest rank or a minister who is accredited to represent their country. But unlike the ambassador-in-residence, who is usually limited to a country or embassy, the ambassador-at-large can be appointed to operate in several usually neighbouring countries, a region or sometimes a seat of international organizations such as the United Nations or European Union. In some cases, an ambassador-at-large may even be specifically assigned a role to advise and assist the state or government in particular issues.
Historically, presidents or prime ministers have commissioned special diplomatic envoys for specific assignments, primarily overseas but sometimes also within the country as ambassadors-at-large.
Title
While the title generally reflects the ambassadors second head position as head of a diplomatic mission, in some countries the term may also represent a rank held by career diplomats, as a matter of internal promotion, regardless of the posting, and in many national careers it is quite common for them to be appointed to other functions, especially within the ministry/ministries in charge of foreign affairs, in some countries in systematic alternation with actual postings.
The formal form of address for an ambassador is generally the form that would be used to address a head of state: "(Your/His/Her) Excellency" followed by name or the country represented. In many countries, less formal variations are frequently used, such as "Ambassador" followed by name, or the name followed by "Ambassador of...". In the United States, "Mister/Madam Ambassador" may be used.
In some countries, a former ambassador may continue to be styled and addressed as ambassador throughout their life (in the United States, "Mr. Ambassador" or "Madam Ambassador" may be heard). In other countries, ambassador is a title that accrues to its holder only with respect to a specific position, and may not be used after leaving or beyond the position. Some countries do not use the term while an ambassador is in the home country, as the officeholder is not an ambassador there; for example, a Canadian ambassador while in Canada is not generally addressed as ambassador, although they may be referred to as "Canadian ambassador to ..."; that is, with reference to a specific job function; the person is addressed or styled as ambassador only while holding such office.
Non-diplomatic ambassadorships
In a less formal sense, the phrase is used for high-profile non-diplomatic representatives of various entities (rarely states), mainly cultural and charitable organizations, often as willing figureheads to attract media attention; for example, film and pop stars make appeals to the public at large for United Nations activities, sometimes during press-swarmed visits in the foreign country. Public figures are sometimes nominated or invited to endorse events designated as ambassadors, brand ambassadors, and goodwill ambassadors such as the Drug Addiction Campaign, Neat and Clean Environment Mission, or the Space Peace Campaign. Many times, international agencies like United Nations also appoint ambassadors to achieve the objectives of a particular mission, like the appointment of goodwill ambassador Bollywood film actress Priyanka Chopra for UNICEF.[7] Japan adopted the cartoon character Hello Kitty as their official goodwill and tourism ambassador to China and Hong Kong in 2008.[8] According to Brain, the job of a brand ambassador was undertaken typically by a celebrity or someone of a well-known presence, who was often voluntary or paid considerably for their time and effort.[9] In French-speaking regions such as metropolitan France, Guadeloupe, Réunion, Quebec, or Wallonia, the title of ambassadeur personne is used.
Further, in the United States of America, senior career officers of the U.S. Foreign Service may be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to the rank of Career Ambassador as professional achievement. Holders of this rank may not necessarily possess diplomatic authority or accreditation to any state, though nearly all have previously served as an Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary during their careers. By custom, they hold the rank for life (including retirement), are addressed with the title Ambassador and may use U.S. Diplomatic Passports for all travel. Prominent career ambassadors include Lawrence Eagleburger, William Joseph Burns and Ryan Crocker.
See also
iconPolitics portal
Chargé daffaires
Consul (representative)
Lists of ambassadors
Diplomacy
Goodwill ambassador
The Philippines (/ˈfɪlɪpiːnz/ (listen); Filipino: Pilipinas),[14] officially the Republic of the Philippines (Filipino: Republika ng Pilipinas),[d] is an archipelagic country in Southeast Asia. It is situated in the western Pacific Ocean and consists of around 7,641 islands that are broadly categorized under three main geographical divisions from north to south: Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao. The Philippines is bounded by the South China Sea to the west, the Philippine Sea to the east, and the Celebes Sea to the southwest. It shares maritime borders with Taiwan to the north, Japan to the northeast, Palau to the east and southeast, Indonesia to the south, Malaysia to the southwest, Vietnam to the west, and China to the northwest. The Philippines covers an area of 300,000 km2 (120,000 sq mi) and, as of 2021, it had a population of around 109 million people,[7] making it the worlds thirteenth-most populous country. The Philippines has diverse ethnicities and cultures throughout its islands. Manila is the countrys capital, while the largest city is Quezon City; both lie within the urban area of Metro Manila.
Negritos, some of the archipelagos earliest inhabitants, were followed by successive waves of Austronesian peoples. Adoption of animism, Hinduism and Islam established island-kingdoms called Kedatuan, Rajahnates, and Sultanates. The arrival of Ferdinand Magellan, a Portuguese explorer leading a fleet for Spain, marked the beginning of Spanish colonization. In 1543, Spanish explorer Ruy López de Villalobos named the archipelago Las Islas Filipinas in honor of Philip II of Spain. Spanish settlement through Mexico, beginning in 1565, led to the Philippines becoming part of the Spanish Empire for more than 300 years. During this time, Catholicism became the dominant religion, and Manila became the western hub of trans-Pacific trade. In 1896, the Philippine Revolution began, which then became entwined with the 1898 Spanish–American War. Spain ceded the territory to the United States, while Filipino revolutionaries declared the First Philippine Republic. The ensuing Philippine–American War ended with the United States establishing control over the territory, which they maintained until the Japanese invasion of the islands during World War II. Following liberation, the Philippines became independent in 1946. Since then, the unitary sovereign state has often had a tumultuous experience with democracy, which included the overthrow of a decades-long dictatorship by a non-violent revolution.
The Philippines is an emerging market and a newly industrialized country whose economy is transitioning from being agriculture-centered to services- and manufacturing-centered. It is a founding member of the United Nations, World Trade Organization, Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, and the East Asia Summit. The Philippiness position as an island country on the Pacific Ring of Fire that is close to the equator makes it prone to earthquakes and typhoons. The country has a variety of natural resources and is home to a globally significant level of biodiversity.
Contents
1Etymology
2History
2.1Prehistory (pre–900)
2.2Early states (900–1565)
2.3Colonial rule (1565–1946)
2.4Postcolonial period (1946–present)
3Geography and environment
3.1Biodiversity
3.2Climate
4Government and politics
4.1Foreign relations
4.2Military
4.3Administrative divisions
5Demographics
5.1Ethnic groups
5.2Languages
5.3Religion
5.4Health
5.5Education
6Economy
6.1Science and technology
6.2Tourism
7Infrastructure
7.1Transportation
7.2Water supply and sanitation
8Culture
8.1Values
8.2Architecture
8.3Music and dance
8.4Literature
8.5Cinema
8.6Mass media
8.7Cuisine
8.8Sports
9See also
10Notes
11References
11.1Citations
11.2Bibliography
12Further reading
13External links
13.1Government
13.2Trade
13.3General information
13.4Books and articles
13.5Wikimedia
13.6Others
Etymology
Main article: Name of the Philippines
Philip II of Spain
Spanish explorer Ruy López de Villalobos, during his expedition in 1542, named the islands of Leyte and Samar "Felipinas" after Philip II of Spain, then the Prince of Asturias. Eventually the name "Las Islas Filipinas" would be used to cover the archipelagos Spanish possessions.[15] Before Spanish rule was established, other names such as Islas del Poniente (Islands of the West) and Ferdinand Magellans name for the islands, San Lázaro, were also used by the Spanish to refer to islands in the region.[16][17][18][19]
During the Philippine Revolution, the Malolos Congress proclaimed the establishment of the República Filipina or the Philippine Republic. From the period of the Spanish–American War (1898) and the Philippine–American War (1899–1902) until the Commonwealth period (1935–1946), American colonial authorities referred to the country as The Philippine Islands, a translation of the Spanish name.[20] The United States began the process of changing the reference to the country from The Philippine Islands to The Philippines, specifically when it was mentioned in the Philippine Autonomy Act or the Jones Law.[21] The full official title, Republic of the Philippines, was included in the 1935 constitution as the name of the future independent state,[22] it is also mentioned in all succeeding constitutional revisions.[23][24]
History
Main article: History of the Philippines
For a chronological guide, see Timeline of Philippine history.
Prehistory (pre–900)
Main article: Prehistory of the Philippines
There is evidence of early hominins living in what is now the Philippines as early as 709,000 years ago.[25] A small number of bones from Callao Cave potentially represent an otherwise unknown species, Homo luzonensis, that lived around 50,000 to 67,000 years ago.[26][27] The oldest modern human remains found on the islands are from the Tabon Caves of Palawan, U/Th-dated to 47,000 ± 11–10,000 years ago.[28] The Tabon Man is presumably a Negrito, who were among the archipelagos earliest inhabitants, descendants of the first human migrations out of Africa via the coastal route along southern Asia to the now sunken landmasses of Sundaland and Sahul.[29]
The first Austronesians reach.
PHOTO officiel DE PRESSE 1935 AVEC CAMERON FORBES AMBASSADEUR GOUVERNEUR GÉNÉRAL DES ÉTATS-UNIS PHILIPPINES
This product is sold to you by .
This product will be sold by and is therefore only available for delivery to addresses within .
Returns must be sent to and will be eligible for refund only, no exchanges are available.
In accordance with our privacy policy, we will share details of your order with using a platform provided by CommerceHub.
Promotions and discounts are unavailable on this item. Gift cards cannot be used on this purchase.
For full terms and conditions, click here.
Learn more
-
Order by 9pm (excludes Public holidays)
-
Order by 9pm (excludes Public holidays)
-
Order by 9pm (excludes Public holidays)
-
Delivered within 3 - 7 days (excludes Public holidays).
-
Spend over €400 (excluding delivery charge) to get a €20 voucher to spend in-store
-
International Delivery is available for this product. The cost and delivery time depend on the country.
You can now return your online order in a few easy steps.
Select your preferred tracked returns service. We have print at home, paperless and collection options available.
You have 28 days to return your order from the date it’s delivered.
Exclusions apply, view our full Returns and Exchanges information here.
Our extended Christmas returns policy runs from 28th October until 5th January 2025, all items purchased online during this time can be returned for a full refund. Click here for full details.
Back to top
