The Philippines' choice
Editorial
Japan Times
July 23, 2004
The government of Philippine President Gloria Magapagal-Arroyo has withdrawn its forces from Iraq to save the life of a kidnapped Filipino. The gamble worked. The hostage, Mr. Angelo de la Cruz, was released unharmed this week and the nation -- like much of the world -- has rejoiced in his freedom. Unfortunately, however, it is feared that Manila's decision may prove shortsighted. Manila's readiness to protect one life may endanger many more, at home and abroad.
Mr. de la Cruz, a father of eight who comes from desperately poor circumstances, had gone to work as a truck driver for a Saudi firm working in Iraq. He is one of the more than 8 million Filipinos working overseas; about 1.4 million of them are in the Middle East. Those overseas workers are a vital part of the Philippine economy, sending home more than $7 billion annually.
Mr. de la Cruz was taken hostage July 7 by Islamic radicals who demanded that Manila withdraw its forces -- 51 soldiers and police officers that had been dispatched to help rebuild Iraq -- or they would kill him. Tapes of him being threatened by his kidnappers were broadcast on al-Jazeera television. After some conflicting reports, Manila announced it would withdraw its forces; a day after the last troops went home, Mr. de la Cruz was released, unharmed.
The Philippines celebrated. President Magapagal-Arroyo defended the move, saying she was motivated to protect the lives of the many Filipinos working overseas: "I made a decision to bring our troops home a few days early in order to spare the life of Angelo. I do not regret that decision."
Mrs. Magapagal-Arroyo has reasons to act as she did. Mr. de la Cruz had become the symbol of the ordinary Filipino. The president, narrowly re-elected (after taking office when her predecessor was forced by mass protests to step down), needs to court public opinion to boost her popularity and her legitimacy; she is thought to be aloof and distant from the concerns of millions of average Filipinos. In fact, the troops were scheduled to be brought home in August, so the withdrawal is, as the president's statement notes, only an acceleration of the timetable.
Were it so simple. While no one wants to see an innocent civilian harmed, Manila's decision is going to encourage terrorism. Immediately after the Philippines announced the withdrawal, another group released a statement demanding that Japan pull its Self-Defense Forces from Iraq or face attacks. A later statement disavowed that threat, but more are sure to follow. Japanese have already been taken hostage, as have dozens of others.
Thus far, at least three civilian hostages -- an American, a Bulgarian and a South Korean -- have been killed in Iraq, and hopes for a second Bulgarian hostage are quickly dwindling. Previous acts of terrorism have not forced governments to change policies and withdraw troops, but that does not mean that the terrorists will not keep trying. Kidnappings sew fear and confusion; sometimes they win ransoms. All are terrorist objectives.
Defenders of Manila's decision point out that there is usually a gap between official government policy and its behavior. Rarely, if ever, do governments stick to the "no negotiations, no concessions" line. Several governments have already reportedly paid ransoms to win the release of hostages seized in Iraq; there are questions whether this list includes Japan.
The U.S. is alleged to have ransomed some of its citizens kidnapped in the Philippines. Suicide bombings in Lebanon led to the withdrawal of U.S. Marines from Lebanon two decades ago. Japan paid for the release of hostages taken five years ago by Islamic militants in Tajikistan and, in 1977, when the Japanese Red Army seized innocents in Bangladesh.
Yet all of that ignores the larger context. Manila, like the governments in Tokyo, Washington, London, Canberra and elsewhere, sent troops to Iraq to help rebuild a country that had been destroyed by war. Giving in to terrorists imperils that mission, putting at risk the other forces that have been sent to help and the Iraqis themselves. Filipinos are right to say that they do not have to put themselves in harm's way, but this threat was entirely foreseeable.
If Manila does not wish to see its citizens hurt, then it is only right to ask why its troops were sent in the first place. There is no good answer to that question: Either the government did not contemplate all the consequences of its action, or it is susceptible to blackmail. Either way, it looks like a weak and unreliable ally, its credibility is damaged, and those governments who remain in Iraq must now cope with the fallout from Manila's change of heart. By all accounts, that looks like a victory for the terrorists.
The Japan Times: July 23, 2004
(C) All rights reserved
The government of Philippine President Gloria Magapagal-Arroyo has withdrawn its forces from Iraq to save the life of a kidnapped Filipino. The gamble worked. The hostage, Mr. Angelo de la Cruz, was released unharmed this week and the nation -- like much of the world -- has rejoiced in his freedom. Unfortunately, however, it is feared that Manila's decision may prove shortsighted. Manila's readiness to protect one life may endanger many more, at home and abroad.
Mr. de la Cruz, a father of eight who comes from desperately poor circumstances, had gone to work as a truck driver for a Saudi firm working in Iraq. He is one of the more than 8 million Filipinos working overseas; about 1.4 million of them are in the Middle East. Those overseas workers are a vital part of the Philippine economy, sending home more than $7 billion annually.
Mr. de la Cruz was taken hostage July 7 by Islamic radicals who demanded that Manila withdraw its forces -- 51 soldiers and police officers that had been dispatched to help rebuild Iraq -- or they would kill him. Tapes of him being threatened by his kidnappers were broadcast on al-Jazeera television. After some conflicting reports, Manila announced it would withdraw its forces; a day after the last troops went home, Mr. de la Cruz was released, unharmed.
The Philippines celebrated. President Magapagal-Arroyo defended the move, saying she was motivated to protect the lives of the many Filipinos working overseas: "I made a decision to bring our troops home a few days early in order to spare the life of Angelo. I do not regret that decision."
Mrs. Magapagal-Arroyo has reasons to act as she did. Mr. de la Cruz had become the symbol of the ordinary Filipino. The president, narrowly re-elected (after taking office when her predecessor was forced by mass protests to step down), needs to court public opinion to boost her popularity and her legitimacy; she is thought to be aloof and distant from the concerns of millions of average Filipinos. In fact, the troops were scheduled to be brought home in August, so the withdrawal is, as the president's statement notes, only an acceleration of the timetable.
Were it so simple. While no one wants to see an innocent civilian harmed, Manila's decision is going to encourage terrorism. Immediately after the Philippines announced the withdrawal, another group released a statement demanding that Japan pull its Self-Defense Forces from Iraq or face attacks. A later statement disavowed that threat, but more are sure to follow. Japanese have already been taken hostage, as have dozens of others.
Thus far, at least three civilian hostages -- an American, a Bulgarian and a South Korean -- have been killed in Iraq, and hopes for a second Bulgarian hostage are quickly dwindling. Previous acts of terrorism have not forced governments to change policies and withdraw troops, but that does not mean that the terrorists will not keep trying. Kidnappings sew fear and confusion; sometimes they win ransoms. All are terrorist objectives.
Defenders of Manila's decision point out that there is usually a gap between official government policy and its behavior. Rarely, if ever, do governments stick to the "no negotiations, no concessions" line. Several governments have already reportedly paid ransoms to win the release of hostages seized in Iraq; there are questions whether this list includes Japan.
The U.S. is alleged to have ransomed some of its citizens kidnapped in the Philippines. Suicide bombings in Lebanon led to the withdrawal of U.S. Marines from Lebanon two decades ago. Japan paid for the release of hostages taken five years ago by Islamic militants in Tajikistan and, in 1977, when the Japanese Red Army seized innocents in Bangladesh.
Yet all of that ignores the larger context. Manila, like the governments in Tokyo, Washington, London, Canberra and elsewhere, sent troops to Iraq to help rebuild a country that had been destroyed by war. Giving in to terrorists imperils that mission, putting at risk the other forces that have been sent to help and the Iraqis themselves. Filipinos are right to say that they do not have to put themselves in harm's way, but this threat was entirely foreseeable.
If Manila does not wish to see its citizens hurt, then it is only right to ask why its troops were sent in the first place. There is no good answer to that question: Either the government did not contemplate all the consequences of its action, or it is susceptible to blackmail. Either way, it looks like a weak and unreliable ally, its credibility is damaged, and those governments who remain in Iraq must now cope with the fallout from Manila's change of heart. By all accounts, that looks like a victory for the terrorists.
The Japan Times: July 23, 2004
(C) All rights reserved
No comments:
Post a Comment