Posted on 07/23/2004 10:22:54 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Philippine action a serious setback in global terrorism fight which may lead militants to plot bolder, wider attacks
LONDON - At least for this weekend, the Philippines has a new hero.
Mr de la Cruz when he was still a hostage, before his government caved in to terrorist demands. -- EPA He is Mr Angelo de la Cruz, held hostage by terrorists in Iraq, but now back home after a triumphant welcome.
President Gloria Arroyo, who acceded to the terrorists' demands and withdrew Philippine troops from Iraq in order to obtain Mr de la Cruz's release, has arranged a common prayer session with the humble truck driver.
Meanwhile, local television stations follow his every move - from his tearful reunion with his family and villagers, to his carefully choreographed meetings with the country's highest politicians.
Yet, amid all these celebrations, the leaders in Manila know that their decision to bargain for Mr de la Cruz's release has severely strained relations with Washington.
Former hostage de la Cruz reunited with his two daughters after his release from captivity. -- AFP And it also amounts to a serious setback in the global fight against terrorism.
Some of the explanations which the Philippine authorities have offered for their actions remain understandable, if not acceptable.
The country's involvement in Iraq was never popular at home, and recent evidence that the war itself was initially launched by the United States on the basis of faulty intelligence information has not helped either.
President Arroyo's administration is fragile; her fear of mass demonstrations and widespread civil disobedience if the hostage was executed appears genuine.
Furthermore, there is little doubt that Mr de la Cruz faced certain death: after all, that was the fate of other foreign hostages captured in Iraq.
And, in any case, the Philippines' military presence in Iraq was small, of more symbolic than strategic value.
However, in countering international terrorism, symbolism matters a great deal.
And, when all is said and done, the fact still remains that a government of an important country has caved in - directly and in a spectacular manner - to the blackmail of a bunch of terrorists.
Nobody doubts Manila's humane intention.
Yet a government has a duty not only to be humane, but to be wise as well, and it is here that the international community should be frank with the Manila authorities.
At the very least, the episode indicates a curious lack of government planning for emergencies of this sort.
Ever since foreign citizens started to be taken hostage in Iraq two months ago, it was clear that any country with troops in the Middle East was under threat.
Yet, bizarrely, Manila does not seem to have planned for this eventuality at all: the initially confused reaction, the lack of consultation among government departments and the unilateral decision to accept the terrorists' demands all smacked of panic-stricken improvisation.
For a country which has faced the scourge of terrorism at home for years (including repeated episodes of hostage-taking), this absence of pre-planning is bizarre.
More importantly, the way Manila dealt with the crisis displayed a fundamental lack of attention to the significance of the event, and its implication for other states.
With an eerie predictability, extremists inside Iraq have been capturing citizens of one country after another: first Americans, then South Koreans, Japanese, Bulgarians, and others.
Their intention is clear: to frighten away as many countries as possible, in order to prevent the creation of a United Nations-led force for the pacification of Iraq.
Nobody can deny Manila's sovereign right to decide what it does with its own troops.
But the international community has a right to expect some consultation in what, after all, remains an international effort.
By deciding to withdraw unilaterally, the Philippines may have obtained a respite for itself. Yet it has now put in danger the lives of citizens from many other countries still present in the Middle East.
Terrorists do follow certain fashions, and move on when these become unprofitable.
During the 1970s, they concentrated on hijacking civilian airlines, usually in order to obtain the release of their imprisoned comrades.
Since the hijackings were initially connected to the Arab-Israel dispute, many other governments were tempted to give in, in the vain hope of obtaining security.
But the result was that the phenomenon spread wider, to countries and airlines which had nothing to do with the Middle East.
Airline hijacking ultimately ceased, not so much because security at airports improved but more because one government after another decided not to deal, even if this resulted in the death of innocent passengers.
Having failed in one method, terrorists turned to other techniques: in what is probably one of the most heart-wrenching events ever, a school bus full of children was captured in Israel more than two decades ago.
For once in its history, the Israeli government briefly considered negotiating with the terrorists. Yet, at the end, it still ordered its special forces to storm the bus.
Many of the young children died during the operation. It was a terrible choice.
But Israel itself never experienced another mass hostage crisis again. The evidence is, therefore, fairly compelling that giving in to terrorism merely invites further blackmail, every single time.
Of course, the Philippines is not alone in trying to negotiate with the captors of its citizens.
The French government, to name but one, frequently bought freedom for its people with various concessions over the past few decades.
And even the Israelis and the Americans - otherwise legendary for their refusal to make concessions - have nevertheless quietly struck deals with blackmailers.
But most of these deals took place secretly and over a long period of time, in order to avoid any direct link between the blackmail and the subsequent concession.
This is not a difference of semantics, but an important tactic: even if a government is prepared to compromise in order to save individual citizens, it must not be publicly seen to be doing so in a hurry or openly, for otherwise it will simply invite further attacks.
These precautions were not followed by the authorities in Manila.
Despite the current setback, further recriminations against the Philippines will achieve nothing; what is required now is a reiteration of the common determination not to cave in to future hostage demands.
Seen in this context, one can only salute Singapore Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan's recent statement before Parliament. What he has articulated is the dilemma facing the entire world.
The duty to protect and defend the welfare of each citizen - incidentally, printed on the back cover of every Singaporean passport - remains undiminished.
Yet the defence of society as a whole from the scourge of terror may sometimes require the refusal to compromise, even if the life of one citizen is in real danger.
The choice between these two options will never be either easy or popular. But it is a choice which governments are expected to make, and one which few governments can ultimately escape.
Philippine action a serious setback in global terrorism fight which may lead militants to plot bolder, wider attacks "
ping
well said.
The men who died for the Phillipines in WWII are turning over in their graves.
When I was a kid I had a few problems - one was a bully would take my lunch money or beat me up (50's) ...
I confided to my uncle about the problem (my Grandmother raised me) - he said - next time tell the bully he better kill you now because when you get out of the hospital, if you survive, you will hunt him down and attack him from behind with a base ball bat or a brick and split his skull ... no matter how long it takes .. he will never know when I am comming for him.
It took a few trial runs with my uncle to actually say it - with intensity - and get the huevos to say it to the bully .... know what? - I was never bothered again by him or others. I was considered a nut case from then on I guess.
Nuff said.
Manila has severe problems with terrorism. On top of that they have little pull in international circles. They are in a weak position and made a poor decision. They also value their independence above all. Maybe if they keep a low profile they will be ignored and thereby survive.
oh hell, I say we just hand the Philippines over to the Chinese. Screw them!
"Manila has severe problems with terrorism..."
Yeah, they've been having problems with Muslim terrorists for a long time there. Their weak kneed response to this will only make things worse for them. They SHOULD have sent in hundreds, thousands of more troops, all with the sworn mission to find de la Cruz, or to hunt down his killers. They are just not getting it. More Christians will have their heads chopped off in the Phillipines and elsewhere thanks to this bad and cowardly decision.
For a long time it was Communist terrorists. Now it is Islamocommie terrorists.
Actually this article is rather one-sided.Yes the Phillipines has a big terrorist problem,but they also do have a rather substantial expat population working in the middle east(largest after India,Pakistan&Egyptians)-they are the only solid source of big revenue for a tottering economy.Suppose as you say(&quiet rightly) that they send thousands of troops-who will protect these expats if the wackos in those countries(&as events have proven there are many) go on a rampage.Mind u most Filipinos are construction workers,nurses,maids etc-they don't have intricate protection (or privileges) that Western expats get.Any reaction against them would have devastated the economy.Moreover Phillipines is the weakest country in that region-both militarily&economically-it's got potential rivals in Malaysia,Indonesia & ofcourse China.It cannot spare the number of troops that South Korea can,esp with the insurgency going on.
Honestly i think it was not the smartest thing to ask them to send troops in the first place-those numbers could have been made up by Australia,,Singapore or even some African country.
U can apply this logic to understand why countries like India,Pakistan didnt show interest to send troops to Iraq.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.