A protracted war

A protracted war

Britain’s Tony Blair stepped down and the Republicans lost the US Congress as the war on terror became defined for many people by the mess in Iraq. Meanwhile, as the sixth anniversary of the terror attacks in the United States approached, the world’s most wanted man again appeared in a videotaped message, hinting at more mass murders.

The appearance of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in a new video was a grim reminder that the global war on terror, dramatically sparked by the suicide attacks in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, is going to be a protracted one. While Bin Laden’s continued existence is seen by many as one of the biggest failures of the US-led war, it also serves as a warning to the world against the perils of complacency.

The atrocity of 9/11 was hatched years in advance. To this day the motives that drove the men who actually perpetrated those crimes against humanity remain incomprehensible to much of the civilized world. Six years after 9/11, governments are still responding to the deadly threat through trial and error, balancing the requirements of national security with civil liberties. Around the globe the balancing act is not easy. The Philippines is not the only country where citizens are debating how much privacy and freedom they are willing to give up in exchange for public safety.

Since 9/11, al-Qaeda has launched a major attack or attempted one in different countries about once a year, hitting mostly civilian targets. This is a borderless conflict, where a faceless enemy knows how to bide its time and is not bound by international agreements on the conduct of war.

Governments have developed new weapons to fight the threat, including legal means to foil terror plots. Authorities have apparently scored some successes, or there would have been more attacks on the scale of 9/11, the 2002 nightclub bombings in Bali or the train bombing in Madrid. As Osama bin Laden has indicated to his disciples, however, they aren’t about to give up trying. There will be many grievous errors in this war, but the world cannot afford to stop fighting. Through development, education, dialogue, law enforcement, and yes, through a military response where needed, the world can prevent a repeat of the 9/11 atrocities.

Ending enforced disappearances

Ending enforced disappearances

Approximately 183 citizens have disappeared since 2001, according to human-right groups that keep count; about 1,900 since 1973. Enforced disappearances continued during the administrations of Corazon Aquino, Fidel Ramos and Joseph Estrada. Who carried out the abductions? What happened to the victims? Were the perpetrators ever been prosecuted and punished?

Leftist organizations have blamed elements of the military and the police since most of the victims were persons known to have socialist or communist leanings. They said they have witnesses and evidence to back their claim. The Armed Forces and the Philippine National Police have denied the charge. The military said the New People’s Army, the Abu Sayyaf or the Moro secessionists could have had a hand in the abductions.

The International Convention for the Protection of Persons from Enforced Disappearance defines involuntary disappearance as “the arrest, detention, abduction or any other form of deprivation of liberty by agents of the State or by persons or groups of persons acting with the authorization, support or acquiescence by the State, followed by a refusal to acknowledge the deprivation of liberty or by concealment of the fate or whereabouts of the disappeared person, which place such a person outside the protection of the law.”

The latest abduction being pinned on the military is that of Jonas Burgos, a farmer and a training specialist for a national organization of peasants. It has been three months since a group of men seized him at a shopping mall in Quezon City. The military has denied involvement. The PNP on Tuesday produced three “communists” who said at a press briefing that the NPA abducted the son of journalist Jose Burgos.

Still missing are Ma. Luisa Posa-Dominado and Nilo Arado, missing since April 12; Karen Empeno and Sherlyn Cadapan, two UP students said to have been abducted by the military on June 26, 2006, and other students, workers, farmers, lawyers and labor organizers identified with left-of-center organizations.

The search for the desaparacidos continues while efforts to stop abductions by the military, police and enemies of the state intensify. In what could be a giant step, 131 congressmen, crossing party lines, have introduced a bill that defines involuntary disappearance and prescribes sanctions on perpetrators and accomplices.

House Bill 2263, “an act defining and penalizing the crime of enforced or involuntary disappearance,” metes life imprisonment for persons involved in such crime. The bill describes five categories of involvement.

It seeks the rehabilitation of the victims and prescribes compensation to their families. The measure aims to provide protection to victims, families, legal counsel, human-rights organizations, the media and witnesses of involuntary disappearance.

The principal author, Rep. Satur Ocampo of Bayan Muna, said that he phenomenon of enforced disappearance has largely remained undefined, unchecked and unpunished in the country. No specific offense related to it has been recognized despite its systematic occurrence in the past 30 years, he added.

The vigor with which the administration and opposition lawmakers supported HB 2263 is comforting. We hope the Senate, under President Manny Villar, would pass its version soon and a conference committee would work on a unified bill for the signature of President Arroyo.

The unabated kidnapping of Filipino citizens—whether socialists, nationalists or communists—is a blot on our democracy and system of justice. It mocks our pretensions to law and order and claims to development with social conscience.

Any law protecting human rights and the safety of citizens, however, will fail unless the Establishment—political, police and military—accepts left-of-center thought as an integral part of the body politic and that socialism or any ideology close to it is not poison but an expression of legitimate political action, an option to the conventional wisdoms about the political economy.

The Magsaysay Awards

It’s the late Ramon Magsaysay’s 100th birthday anniversary. Among Filipino presidents, he has no peer in honesty and devotion to duty.

The nation honors him by conferring the Ramon Magsaysay Foundation’s Award on seven distinguished Asians for outstanding service to humanity.

The Foundation says “the 2007 Ramon Magsaysay awardees are collectively advancing causes to improve lives and correct unjust social conditions across Asia.” They will receive their awards in fitting ceremonies today, joining the 256 previous awardees in a distinct hall of fame.

We join the Filipino people and the Ramon Magsaysay Foundation in congratulating:

The revered former Senate president Jovito R. Salonga, the awardee for government service, for the integrity and substance of his long public career in service to democracy and good government.

Kim Sun Tae of Korea, the awardee for public service, for helping his fellow blind and visually impaired in South Korea.

Mahabir Pun of Nepal, the awardee for community service, for his innovative application of wireless computer technology in Nepal, particularly in the villages.

Tang Xiyang of China, the awardee for peace and international understanding, for guiding China to meet its mounting environmental crisis.

Palagummi Sainath of India, the awardee for journalism, literature and creative communication, for his commitment as a journalist to restore the rural poor to India’s national consciousness.

Chen Guangcheng of China, the awardee for emergent leadership, for leading ordinary Chinese citizens to assert their legitimate rights under the law. And,

Chung To of China, another awardee for emergent leadership, for his proactive response to AIDS in China.

What Sison’s arrest means

What Sison’s arrest means

Manila newspapers head­lined yesterday the arrest of Mr. Jose Ma. Sison, political consultant of the National Democratic Front, in the peace talks with government. He is more known as the founding chairman of the Communist Party of the Philippines which is engaged in armed struggle with the government.

He was reportedly arrested in the city of Utrecht in The Netherlands which also hosts the foreign chapter of the NDF rebel coalition.

It is a significant development in the history of the insurgency, almost similar to the time Mr. Sison was arrested sometime in 1977 in the Philippines while he was in the underground. After his release in 1986 by the Cory government, he went on exile in The Netherlands.

The report said that Mr. Sison would be tried in Dutch courts on the ground that he violated Dutch laws. One of that crime is he reportedly ordered the killing of some people in the Philippines while staying in The Netherlands.

The previous arrangement in Mr. Sison’s exile was that he could stay as a political refugee in The Netherlands provided he did not violate local laws. The legal question now is whether the state prosecutors of The Netherlands could prove that Sison indeed ordered the killing while staying in the European country.

That would be matter of a presentation of evidence. Remember that the Dutch courts and government are under pressure to show fairness in their trials because many elements in the Dutch Parliament are human rights-oriented. Public opinion also won’t allow unfair trial for political refugees or their eventual extradition to their native countries, even for a suspected communist like Sison.

From 1986, Joma could stay in The Netherlands since he was supported by many members of the Dutch Parliament who thought that no political refugee should be expelled if he is in danger of being persecuted at home. Even before his arrest, Joma could travel to the Benelux countries: Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg.

For the Philippine audience, the more important question on the Joma arrest is its implication on the peace process. Would this development lead to resumption of peace negotiations between the government and the communist rebels? Or will this lead to more violence in the insurgent areas?

The peace talks that started in 1992 have been canceled several times because of the many contentious issues that cropped up during the talks. After the initial agreement on human rights, the other three topics held vital to a final peace accord had been put on the backburner. One obstacle is the disagreement on truce, a foolish attitude since ceasefire is supposed to benefit both sides.

Just a recollection: The arrest and incarceration of Joma during the Marcos years did not check the insurgency. As a matter of fact, it even increased the number of rebels and their arms to the point of threatening the government in 1986. At that time, the rebels were already proclaiming the entry of strategic offensive, which means readiness to enter Manila. What we are saying is that the arrest of a leader did not mean the end of the insurgency.

The Philippine government should take advantage of the situation by proposing a resumption of peace talks with the NDF, with no conditions. And in that effort, The Netherlands and members of the European Union would fully support the peace initiative.

Remembering del Pilar

We remember today, August 30, Marcelo H. del Pilar, the chief propagandist of the Philippine Revolution. Like Rizal and Bonifacio, we honor his memory because of his role in building our race and nation.

Samahang Plaridel will honor this Bulakeño with flowers at his tomb in the Children’s Park (in front of Manila Zoo). Journalists and city officials will be there to pay tribute to the man who set the standards of Filipino journalism.

BRIEF NOTES. General Avelino “Sonny” Razon will be our guest at the Kapihan sa Sulo on Saturday at 9:30 a.m. at the Sulo Hotel in Quezon City . . . Puerto Princesa Mayor Edward Hagedorn is angry at the proliferation of mining claims in his city. Local government cannot sit idly while the environment is being destroyed by profit-oriented firms. . . . The same is happening in Sibuyan Island in Romblon. Heard that some mining firms are out to destroy the beautiful Mt. Guiting-Guiting just to mine iron ore and nickel in San Fernando. . . . Good that Congressman Carlos Padilla has filed charges against the ZTE and the DOTC for the national broadband contract.

Wasted lives

Wasted lives

If the government is thinking of the greater good of Mindanao and the country, it had better call off the all-out offensive that has been launched by its hawkish generals in Sulu and Basilan. If it has to go after the Abu Sayyaf bandits that killed 14 Marines and beheaded 10 of them, it should conduct small, commando-type operations instead of set battles. Decades of encounters with Moro separatists and bandits have shown that conventional warfare does not work well in Mindanao.

Church and political leaders, civic and women’s groups have lamented the waste of lives in Mindanao. The latest to die on the government side were 10 Marines and five junior officers who, reports said, were mowed down “like sitting ducks” by the Abu Sayyaf after they ignored their guides’ advice on what trail to take.

What is strange is that, as disclosed by an Army officer on condition of anonymity, the encounter was “considered part of their training in close-quarters combat” and “was just a test mission.” What? Are the generals playing with the lives of soldiers, sending them on “test missions” to find out which tactic will work against the Abu Sayyaf? If this is true, this is the height of callousness and insensitivity on the part of these desk-bound generals.

Many lives have been wasted in the all-out offensive against the Abu Sayyaf. And most of the victims have been soldiers in the flower of their youth. Their deaths bring to mind what US President Herbert Hoover said about war: “Older men declare war. But it is the youth that must fight and die. And it is the youth who must inherit the tribulation, the sorrow, and the triumphs that are the aftermath of war.”

Actually, no one wins in a war; everyone is a loser. The casualties lose their lives or some of their limbs. Wives become widows; children are left orphans. Their fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters all grieve for them. The world of the soldiers’ families is turned upside down.

An all-out war is bad not only for the families of the soldiers, but also for the regional and national economy. Senators last week said that an all-out war could cost the government P1 billion a month. Think of what P1 billion could finance to improve the lives of the people in Sulu and Basilan, two of the most underdeveloped places in the South. One billion pesos could pay for more low-cost houses, schools, hospitals, roads, bridges and livelihood programs.

Joseph Gloria of the Social Watch Philippines-Mindanao last week said that the all-out offensive in Sulu and Basilan is further setting back the eradication of poverty and other Millennium Development Goals in Region 12. He added that in a conflict, the most affected are the children because when wars erupt, people take refuge in the nearest schools and deprive the children of places for their education.

Already, 15,000 people have been “affected” or “displaced” by the hostilities in Sulu and Mindanao. The government officials’ terms -- “affected” and “displaced” -- do not fully convey the depth of suffering and fear of uncertainty that the people affected by the war are feeling. Truly, as writer Arthur Koestler once said, wars consist of only 10 percent action and 90 percent passive suffering. And it is mostly the women and the children, aside from those who die and are maimed at the front, who greatly suffer.

As of last week about 9,000 soldiers had been committed to the all-out offensive in Sulu and Basilan. Nine thousand soldiers going after what -- 150 or at most 200 -- Abu Sayyaf bandits reinforced by some rogue guerrillas belonging to the Moro National Liberation Front. The imbalance of forces is very overwhelming in favor of the government, and yet up to now the encounters have resulted only in the massacre of young officers and soldiers. Clearly, the situation shows again that conventional warfare, set battles will not turn the tide in Mindanao.

It is not too late to de-escalate the hostilities. If the Marines have to avenge their slain and beheaded comrades, so be it. But limit their activities to surgical operations that will not affect entire islands. Macho warriors cannot forget the Old Testament maxim of “a tooth for a tooth” and “an eye for an eye.” And it is always easy for generals who stay in the comfort of their airconditioned war rooms to wage war and play with the lives of their men. But the morally courageous stand is to call for the reduction of hostilities and to work for peace.

The possible dream

The possible dream

Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr. ignored warnings, one of them from Imelda Marcos herself, that there were threats to his life if ever he returned to Manila. The former senator saw his beloved nation teetering on the brink of ruin under the Marcos dictatorship, and he wanted to do what he could to set things right. People called him Quixotic, dreaming of the impossible, suffering from boredom in exile. Aquino ignored the warnings and headed to his death, 24 years ago today.

In three years his dream of freedom for his country was realized, made possible by the outpouring of public grief and rage over his assassination. In a rare show of unity, Filipinos gathered at EDSA for four days in February 1986, refusing to leave unless Ferdinand Marcos stepped down. Ninoy Aquino’s impossible dream became reality: the dictatorship collapsed and Filipinos relished their hard-won freedom.

But it was just the first step in the tortuous path to a strong democracy. Today little has changed in the culture that allowed someone like Ferdinand Marcos to remain in power for so long. More weight is given to civic entitlements rather than responsibilities. Always, individual satisfaction is placed ahead of national interest.

People power, as we have learned in the past two decades, is no cure-all for the many ills afflicting Philippine society. There is no magic wand that will bring national prosperity. A popular revolt needs to be followed with hard work to strengthen democratic institutions. In a culture where corruption is endemic and there is infinite tolerance for wasteful inefficiency, extra effort is needed to promote good government, public accountability and the rule of law. Ninoy Aquino’s death led to the realization of a part of his dream. The rest of the dream can still be turned into reality.

Stopping the bloodshed in Mindanao

Stopping the bloodshed in Mindanao

Dozens are believed to have been killed as govern-ment troops and Muslim extremists clashed in a town in Basilan. The military described the fighting as a close-quarter battle the intensity of which usually results in high casualties. At least 16 of the dead were government soldiers, and four of them were officers.

The hostilities flared after several tense weeks of eyeball-to-eyeball confrontation in Basilan between government forces and Abu Sayyaf fighters believed to be reinforced by Moro Islamic Liberation Front guerrillas. The military had been holding back to allow the police to serve warrants on Abu Sayyaf and MILF members suspected of having killed and beheaded 10 Marines early last month. As expected the suspects could not be found, much less arrested, and the police stepped aside for the assault to begin.

There is no doubt the soldiers were only too eager to engage the enemy and avenge the mutilation of their comrades, hence the fierceness of the battle. The insurgents were finally forced out of their camp, but not before a helicopter gunship providing air support for the troops was brought down by ground fire and one of its pilots killed.

The battle in Basilan will not be a quick one. We expect hostilities to be drawn-out, and casualties to be high. As usual the biggest victims will be the civilians, many of whom have fled their homes ahead of the fighting. The President had reminded the military to keep collateral damage to a minimum, but that is easier said than done; bullets and bombs do not discriminate.

There is no belaboring the justification for the offensive in Basilan. An atrocity has been committed; the perpetrators must be punished. The overriding concern, however, is that the fighting in Basilan could spread to other flashpoints in Mindanao. In Sulu the Armed Forces is already hunting down another group of Abu Sayyaf who killed about two dozen soldiers in two ambuscades. That offensive would definitely be stepped up.

The Abu Sayyaf has time and against shown its capacity to strike somewhere else whenever its forces are pinned down in a particular area. Following that strategy the extremists will most likely launch terrorist attacks in Zamboanga City, General Santos or even Davao City to try to ease the pressure on its beleaguered fighters in Basilan and Sulu.

Containing the conflict within the two fronts should be foremost in the minds of our generals. In the meantime civilian authorities must explore new directions to bring peace to Mindanao.

Over the weekend, Speaker Jose de Venecia proposed an ambitious plan to spur economic growth in Mindanao over a five-year period. Under the Speaker’s “mini-Marshall Plan,” the government would ask the US, Australia, Japan and other countries with a stake in the Mindanao to put up a $1-billion fund to build roads, bridges, schools and hospitals. The government itself would raise $500 million as a counterpart fund.

It’s an ambitious project, but at this point, any initiative to stop the bloodshed in Mindanao is worth looking into.

Speed and stealth in Sulu

Speed and stealth in Sulu

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Amnesia, not amnesty

Amnesia, not amnesty

It had the familiar sweeping quality of Speaker Jose de Venecia’s pronouncements: an “all-encompassing” amnesty for, as one news report put it, “all enemies of the state,” filed “soon,” in order to “unify the nation.” No halfway measures for this five-term leader of the House of Representatives; it’s all or nothing.

But in this case, it’s nothing. The proposed amnesty is so ambitious it is bound to fail. It includes all insurgents, as well as (possibly, De Venecia hinted) deposed President Joseph Estrada. The reaction from Sen. Jose “Jinggoy” Estrada, the ex-president’s co-accused son who is now, in one of history’s ironies, Senate president pro tempore, is one index of the difficulty the bill will face. His father is not an enemy of the state, he said.

To be sure, De Venecia is conscious about the limits of the proposed amnesty. “This is a wide-ranging, all-encompassing amnesty to cover all insurgents and all those who have committed political crimes against the state,” he said over the weekend. The protective mantle, in other words, reaches only those charged with or convicted of political crimes.

But De Venecia has more, much more, in mind. “This will create the beginnings of real national unity. The next president will have [fewer] tasks [on] his or her hands and at the same time it will complete a legacy for all of us.” All this legacy-speak makes sense, however, only if Estrada is included in the amnesty’s scope.

The plunder charge Estrada is facing cannot be considered a political crime (although we will, yet again, hear the case described as politically motivated, regardless of the finding, when the Sandiganbayan issues its decision in the next several weeks). But the status of Estrada’s alleged crime does not faze the ever-practical De Venecia. The former president can be included in the amnesty, he said. “Let it come normally. Let it be a consensus of all.”

It is less difficult to include Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV, who is facing coup charges before a regional trial court.

Far be it from us to argue against a policy proposal merely because it is difficult to implement or because it is certain to meet determined resistance.

De Venecia, in fact, argues from the relative successes of recent history. He pointed, for instance, to the example of Sen. Gregorio Honasan, one of a legion of coup plotters who were granted amnesty in 1995. Honasan himself the other day acknowledged the advantage of “six years of uninterrupted political stability” -- referring to the term of President Fidel V. Ramos, the ex-general who promoted amnesty as a policy and forged the peace agreement with the Moro National Liberation Front.

But that was then, and today’s circumstances are radically different.

In the first place, the 1995 amnesty was supposed to prevent future military adventurism. But the 2003 Oakwood mutiny, which the government initially alleged was masterminded by Honasan himself, shows us that success on the amnesty front has been relative indeed.

Secondly, unlike in the early 1990s, the Armed Forces of the Philippines is in the middle of a major offensive against Abu Sayyaf terrorists, in Sulu and Basilan -- an offensive that necessitates taking action against “lost commands” or rogue units of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Moro National Liberation Front. Any appeal for amnesty at this time is not only in poor taste; it is demoralizing for government troops who are in the thick of the fight.

Not least, those who availed themselves of the amnesty in 1995 showed remorse for their actions, or at least acknowledged their wrongdoing. Even if, by some legal or legislative sleight of hand, plunder is redefined as a political crime, we still have to hear Estrada acknowledge that he did wrong.

If it becomes “the consensus of all” to include Estrada in the general amnesty, then this proposed policy is nothing more -- and nothing less -- than a prescription for amnesia.

In other words, De Venecia’s “wide-ranging” formula as it stands is the legislative equivalent of saying, “Let’s forget everything.” That way lies continued political immaturity.

Probe this bloodbath, Secretary Teodoro

Probe this bloodbath, Secretary Teodoro

BUSY as he is with the campaign on the new Abu Sayyaf depredations in the southern Philippines, Defense Secretary Gilbert Teodoro should take time to ask his generals about the Black Saturday shootings in Parang, Sulu, that killed eight soldiers and a civilian four months ago.

To this day, neither the Armed Forces of the Philippines nor the Department of National Defense has released an official report on the killings that began at 2:30 a.m. in an Army camp housing Charlie Company of the Philippine Army’s 35th Infantry Battalion in Barangay Silangkan, Parang.

On April 8, the Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Ernesto Torres Jr., reported the mass killings as a “shooting incident,” a catchall phrase that could mean anything. He denied that one of the soldiers had gone on a shooting rampage.

A day later, the AFP chief of staff, Gen. Hermogenes Esperon Jr., hinted that “animosities” among the troops may have triggered the shooting, but refused to go further. He said the investigation was in progress.

Since then, we have not heard from the general or his spokesman. The military has not released a single report on the investigation. The public remains in the dark about the mass killings.

The silence has raised speculations and theories about the mysterious deaths. One explanation said a troop had run amuck. Another theory posited that a civilian was refused enlistment and had vented his resentment on the soldiers. The NPA or MNLF could have attacked the camp, went another story. It was reported that a drinking binge preceded the bloodbath. An overnight guest, a woman, is said to have been present at that party.

The public does not even know who headed the investigation. Was there a cover-up? Was there an effort to pass off command responsibility? What’s the big reason for the secrecy?

We have not been told the identities of the fatalities. They remain nameless to this time. We hope the families, at least, were notified. We hope the bodies were given proper burial.

Truth must be told, the guilty punished, and the innocent cleared. We owe the victims and their families justice. Responsibility for the massacre must be located and the episode closed to the satisfaction of everyone. Military honor and tradition will remain tarnished if the Black Saturday Massacre is not fully explained. Clearing the air should be part of Secretary Teodoro’s priorities.

Action, finally, in Darfur

AFTER four years of procrastination, after more than 2.1 million people have been driven into camps, after an estimated 200,000 died from the combined effects of war and famine, and after hundreds of women were raped, the United Nations has started moving to protect civilians and prevent further deaths and destruction in Sudan’s vast, arid western region.

On Tuesday the UN Security Council authorized up to 26,000 soldiers and police officers for Darfur. The mission will take over peacekeeping from 7,000 ill-equipped African Union troops.

The resolution, unanimously adopted, authorizes a UN-AU operation to protect civilians under siege and to ensure the free movement of humanitarian workers. While the resolution acknowledges Sudan’s sovereignty, it allows the use of force for self-defense.

The resolution supports the implementation of the Darfur Peace Agreement signed by Khartoum with the main Darfur rebel groups more than a year ago. Two of the other negotiating rebel factions refused to endorse the deal.

It urges Sudan and rebel groups to commit themselves to a permanent ceasefire and to join peace talks under AU-UN auspices.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon described the resolution as “historic and unprecedented” and said the mission would make a “clear and positive difference.” Ban has made Darfur a priority since taking over as UN chief last January.

US Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad urged President Omar Hassan al-Bashir to extend “maximum cooperation” but warned that if Sudan does not comply, Washington “will move for the swift adoption of unilateral and multilateral measures.”

If fully deployed, the mission will be the biggest peacekeeping operation in the world. The troop strength will depend on the willingness of UN members to contribute troops, police and materials.

The Philippines should make a contribution to the humanitarian mission and contribute troops to the peacekeeping army.

Peace in Darfur, Sudan and the African continent is in the interest of the Filipinos. Providing troops, supporting pro-Darfur resolutions at the UN and helping end repression anywhere will help advance our democratic ideals and promote world peace and prosperity.

Dying in Sulu

Dying in Sulu

What, exactly, is happening in Sulu? The high death toll reported last week has caused many to sound the alarm, not only in Camp Aguinaldo but even in the halls of Congress.

It has since become clear that the Armed Forces sustained the losses not in a single firefight, but in two encounters. The grief the public feels remains sharp, but it becomes a bit more bearable when the fog of war lifts a little.

The brutal fact remains, however: Too many soldiers lost their lives last week in the battlefields of Sulu. What did they die for?

They died in pursuit of the remnant Abu Sayyaf, and especially of two Jemaah Islamiyah leaders: Dulmatin and Umar Patek. That they were killed, in all likelihood, by members of the Moro National Liberation Front, an organization the government signed a peace accord with a decade ago, makes their sacrifice all the more heartbreaking.

Or all the more pointless—if, that is, we credit those who have never believed a lasting peace with Moro separatist groups was possible. For them, every armed encounter, every ambush, is fresh proof that Muslims cannot be trusted.

For those of us who believe in the possibility of lasting peace in the South, however, every armed encounter, every ambush, is proof positive that the peace process is as necessary as ever.

Certainly, the government’s iron fist must come down hard on those who coddle the JI terrorists and the Abu Sayyaf bandits. But the government must do so without losing sight of the true national interest: not merely to pursue the terrorists or to punish those who offer them sanctuary, but to establish the basis of a lasting peace. As President Macapagal-Arroyo said in the first of three statements she released over the weekend: “The military offensive against the Abu Sayyaf must continue, not as an act of vengeance but as a strategy to win the peace.”

Much about the offensive in Sulu remains confusing, and confused. But this much we can say.

THE KILL RATIO. The other day, Rep. Roilo Golez asked plaintively why the kill ratio, as it were, was almost 1:1. Perhaps a congressional investigation was in order? As a graduate of the US Naval Academy, however, Golez should have known better. This is guerrilla warfare. Rebels are not obliged to tell the media how many casualties they sustained; in fact, they remove bodies from the battlefield as soon as they can, because they can.

After two encounters last Thursday, for example, it was reported that only five Moro rebels had died. That is to say, only five bodies of men identified as belonging to the MNLF were found. But Jolo brigade commander Anthony Supnet said he had found out from residents in the area that about 40 rebels were actually killed. In contrast, Supnet said, “We cannot hide our casualties.”

THE ROGUE MNLF. All the President’s statements notwithstanding, the offensive against the Abu Sayyaf at this stage involves—or rather consists mainly of—attacks on MNLF redoubts in Sulu suspected of harboring the bandits and the JI leaders. Because “blood ties are very strong in Sulu,” as one peace advocate and long-time Sulu researcher told this newspaper, the AFP is actually engaged in combat with armed men who do not think of themselves in the same way the AFP, and the public at large, thinks of them. Said Victor Taylor: “What needs to be stressed is that from the perspective of the fighters, the organizational labels that the government uses, such as ‘rogue MNLF-Abu Sayyaf,’ have no meaning. It’s the common enemy that binds them together.”

That common enemy, unfortunately, is the AFP.

THE SPIRAL OF WAR. Is this reality “on the ground,” as both military commanders and armchair warmongers are fond of saying, evidence that peace with our Muslim brethren is only an illusion? No. Peace with the majority of our Muslim citizens is a triumphant fact; peace with one major Moro separatist movement a true feat; peace with the other separatist group still, despite recent encounters, closer at hand.

Over and above the snarling image of remnant MNLF units who retained their arms, we must acknowledge the reality of thousands of former MNLF rebels successfully integrated into the AFP or fully rehabilitated into mainstream life. In fact, some of those killed or wounded or involved in last week’s offensive were ex-MNLF “integrees.” We don’t doubt their sense of duty, their patriotism.

The Histrionic Security Act of 2007

The Histrionic Security Act of 2007

I don’t know why Congress and President Macapagal-Arroyo still had to enact the Human Security Act of 2007 when the Armed Forces are already violating the Bill of Rights under existing laws. The pretext of protecting the nation against terrorists is a lame excuse. There are already the checkpoints and the warrantless arrests and the desaparecidos and the unsolved murders and other violations of human rights that are traceable to the military under its fearless “Don’t count me out” commander in chief. These are enough to assure President George W. Bush that GMA is still loyally supporting his campaign to combat international terrorism, from the hills of Pakistan to the malls in Metro Manila, with his Guantanamo Bay persuasions.

The HSA is like an uncomely woman using all kinds of artifices to make her look attractive. Colored wigs, heavy makeup, padded brassieres, corsets, perfume and other beauty aids are used to cover up her innate ugliness and deceive the unsuspecting and easily impressed onlooker. So it is with the anti-terrorism law which conceals its oppressive provisions with a veneer of supposed restrictions and conditions intended to convince the people that any abuse in the implementation of its strictures shall be dealt with severely and instantly.

Stiff penalties are imposed for the commission of the crimes enumerated in its Section 3 that are already punished by the Revised Penal Code but are additionally condemned if they sow and create “a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.” This requirement can be easily established before a court of justice influenced by the cohorts of the administration or because of the inefficacy of our procedural rules, as in habeas corpus proceedings that are helplessly disarmed where the respondent simply denies custody of the person sought.

There are many restrictions on the conduct of the law-enforcement agents seeking to defile human rights and individual liberties, like the deadlines for the filing of motions to make illegal searches and seizures, the duration of the extraordinary permission given by the Court of Appeals, the care, confidentiality and disposition of the seized materials, the examination and even freezing of bank accounts, the return of the documents improperly taken, the inadmissibility of evidence illegally obtained, the humane treatment of detained persons, the requirement for the continuous trial of alleged terrorists, and other supposed guarantees for the observance of due process.

But all this are mere blank bullets in a theatrical gun intended merely to impress the gullible with loud sound effects. Even current earlier laws already carry similar safeguards that are frequently and openly violated by overzealous or malicious law agents without incurring the prescribed disciplinary sanctions including criminal prosecution and punishment.

How many missing persons are now languishing in some military hideout if not already buried in unmarked graves? Where, to name only a few victims, are Bubby Dacer and his driver Emmanuel Corbito, who vanished years ago and are strongly presumed to have been murdered by two still unpunished officers of the national police? Where too is Jonas Burgos, whom the military denies having abducted or, worse, it may already have executed since his disappearance more than three months ago?

Will (for it can) the HSA expose and avenge these provable mysteries?

There is also that silly Section 50 of the HSA calling for the payment of damages in the amount of P500,000 to any person acquitted of the charge of terrorism “for every day that he or she has been detained or deprived of liberty or arrested without a warrant as a result of such accusation.” This must be done within 15 days from the acquittal of the accused, from some esoteric appropriation that is sure to be inadequate if not invisible. After all, the one million peso travel allowance Speaker Jose de Venecia has promised each new member of the House of Representatives must first be paid.

Under RA 7309, victims of unjust imprisonment, arbitrary detention or violent crimes may claim damages in the amount of P1,000 for every month of imprisonment, and in all other cases, the award shall not exceed P10,000 or the expenses incurred for medical treatment, loss of wages, loss of support or other expenses related to the injury, whichever is lower. This law is peanuts compared to the impossible generosity of the HSA under the exorbitant and spendthrift Arroyo government.

Let it also be especially noted, with alarm, that implementation of the HSA is under the supervision of the Anti-Terrorism Council composed of tractable Cabinet secretaries under the control of President Arroyo. And, unbelievably, the law was passed with the consent of the lucid members of the Senate, which is usually fastidious when it comes to the protection of the Constitution.

The Human Security Act is comical except that the people who enacted it are dead serious about it. We could all die laughing.

Reckless warmongering

Reckless warmongering

Yet again, we face a vital test of institutions. The beheading of Philippine Marines in Tipo-Tipo continues to foster a justified outrage, and keeps on producing shocking, even damning, allegations of incompetence on the part of the armed forces. First, there were questions concerning the ammunition provided the troops. Then, more recently, there emerged the equally shocking allegation that the Marines were unable to receive assistance, for lack of a common radio frequency between the men on the ground and the pilots sent to lend them air support.

The Marines want revenge. By all accounts, the public is largely foursquare behind the soldiers. We recall an observation made by a TV executive, some months ago. With regard to news and current affairs, the public hates news of the fighting in Mindanao: ratings show that when shows cover that topic, viewers switch channels. The public would much rather keep the fighting in Mindanao out of sight—and out of mind.

But nothing gets public opinion heated up than the massacre of soldiers, and nothing brings out a residual patriotism in the public than a military offensive in Mindanao. And it is very easy for the national leadership to pander to—there’s no other word for it—such chauvinism by letting loose the dogs of war.

This is why we say the country faces a vital test of institutions. The Marines, sent to rescue a hostaged Italian priest, apparently stumbled onto territory jealously guarded by rebels, who engaged the Marines in a firefight and butchered them when the soldiers were subdued—because their ammunition was defective, their command-and-control ineffectual, and their search-and-rescue proved a suicide charge.

The question is whether a military offensive should proceed on the basis of a bungled operation. Perhaps the public doesn’t care why the soldiers died, and only, that they did—and that the rebels must pay. However, the public ought to care that the soldiers, who died bravely, also died senselessly: and that more soldiers’ lives will be squandered if the military doesn’t get a grip on the causes of the massacre in the first place.

The causes are two. First, the rebels in Mindanao are either disunited (with factions talking peace while others are trying to goad the military into renewed hostilities), or plain insincere about the peace talks, valuing the protection of their territorial enclaves more than the peace process. Second, the armed forces, because of poor generalship, and inefficiency verging on the criminal, are incapable of mounting effective operations, which include supporting troops tasked with missions on the ground. All this, despite the active assistance of allies in the fight against groups like the Abu Sayyaf, once a bandit group but which has now armed itself with a pan-Islamic, radical ideology.

The same intellectual ferment that produced the First Quarter Storm also gave birth to the concept of a Bangsamoro. President Ferdinand Marcos’ delusions of being the conqueror of Sabah resulted in the Jabidah massacre, revolt in Muslim Mindanao and the bloodiest fighting in the country since World War II. The Tripoli Agreement of 1976 established a brittle peace with the Moro National Liberation Front.

The Moro Islamic Liberation Front split off as a more radical offshoot, with dreams of a Bangsamoro more patently religious than the fairly secular MNLF. But the MILF has been torn by a further radicalization: dreams of an Islamic state covering the region. The MILF has flirted with the Jemaah Islamiyah, which has a larger goal, represented by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda: to restore an Islamic caliphate. The Abu Sayyaf belongs to this radical, pan-Islamic regional movement.

Human Rights Watch recently reported that since 2000, more than 1,700 civilians have been killed or wounded in terror attacks, mainly in Mindanao. This is more than the casualties in terror-related activities in Indonesia, or Morocco, Spain, Turkey, or Britain. And yet, our institutions have overlooked a central question: unquestionably popular a military solution might be, among Christians (particularly in Mindanao), the Filipino Muslim voice—particularly those clamoring for peace—has been not only largely drowned out, but also ignored. Yet, who can doubt that a lasting victory against terrorism, and a just peace, are impossible without their support?

Secret Deals

Secret Deals

It’s not just businessmen who are smelling secret deals. Filipinos — especially those who still remember the dark years of the dictatorship – are appalled at every court victory of the Marcoses. The public also can’t help noticing the current zeal – never before seen since the 1986 people power revolt — with which the Marcoses are moving to recover the enormous wealth frozen by the government on suspicion that the assets were amassed illegally.

More than 21 years after the Marcoses were driven into exile in a popular revolt, most of those assets remain frozen, and the accusation that the assets were ill-gotten have not been established beyond doubt. Perhaps some folks just have all the luck. Or perhaps it helps to have a sympathetic administration on your side, with those tasked to go after ill-gotten wealth under tacit orders to lose interest in winning court cases. The Marcoses are refurbishing their old homes, and family members are moving aggressively to gain ownership of several large business holdings and pieces of prime real estate. Imelda Marcos is back in the party circuit, and is a special guest even in the party of a ranking official of the Presidential Commission on Good Government. The PCGG commissioner did not receive even a slap on the wrist for the incident; he probably knew Malacañang would not mind.

If you can’t win a court case, the next best thing is to go for a compromise settlement. Negotiations for such a settlement are normally best kept out of the public eye. But the public must first be informed that the administration has decided to abandon the judicial route and go for a settlement with the Marcoses. The key figures in any negotiation must be identified, and the public must know which assets are at stake.

Equally important, a mechanism must be in place to ensure that whatever wealth is turned over to the government will go to public coffers rather than the pockets of a handful of corrupt officials and private dealmakers. Those who remember the days of the dictatorship are also demanding an explanation for the source of the Marcoses’ wealth, which an honest Philippine president could never have amassed in 20 years. If the administration wants to settle with the Marcoses, there must be transparency in the process.

The definition of terrorism under the HSA

The definition of terrorism under the HSA

The definition of the crime of terrorism under the Human Security Act (HSA) has been criticized for being vague as well as ambiguous and, as a result, highly susceptible to governmental abuse. In truth, the definition is clear enough, albeit ill-conceived. For it is guilty both of under-inclusive­ness and over-inclusiveness. Under-inclusive classifications do not embrace within its scope all those intended to be considered guilty of the crime; while over-inclusive classifications encompass within its breadth those intended to be innocent. Hence, the criticism that it is susceptible to abuse is correct. More significantly, since the definition includes those who are not similarly situated under an intended classification and excludes those who are, it may also be criticized for violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

There exist three elements to the crime of terrorism under the HSA: (i.) a person must commit any of various specified acts punishable under our criminal law, the more important of which constitute piracy or mutiny, rebellion or insurrection, coup d’état, murder, kidnapping, crimes involving destruction, arson, illegal or unlawful possession, manufacture, dealing in or acquisition of firearms, ammunitions or explosives; (ii.) such an act “thereby [sows] and [creates] a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace,” and (iii.) the act is committed “in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.”

It is instructive to examine some paradigm examples of terrorism in our historical experience in order to test the suitability of the above definition. In the late 70s and early 80s, members of the Light-A-Fire Movement issued threats of arson and committed crimes involving destruction in an attempt to overthrow the Marcos government. These crimes included making numerous calls warning government offices of imminent bombings or fires and actually bombing some buildings, such as the Philippine International Convention Center. More recently, the bombing of certain buses or railway trains was allegedly committed by the MILF in order to compel the government to recognize an independent Muslim state.

If the above examples are indeed paradigmatic, then the definition is flawed by several misconceptions. First, they indicate that an essential element of acts of terrorism involves the willingness of the terrorist to actually harm, kill, damage or destroy civilians or non-military targets as part of strategy. That is precisely why such acts result in widespread and extraordinary fear and panic. Hence it is not actually the commission of any of the crimes enumerated in the first element of the definition, along with the second and third elements, which renders an act one of terrorism; rather, it is the commission of these or other acts in fulfillment of the above strategy which does.

The failure to appreciate the first misconception results in the anomaly of prosecuting and punishing the traditional rebel for the crime of terrorism instead of rebellion. Whereas the terrorist uses methods such as the sacrifice of innocent civilians in pursuit of his cause, the traditional rebel refrains from doing so. After all, in his attempt to overthrow the government, the traditional rebel desires to win over the populace to his cause. And yet, if the rebellion is reasonably successful so that widespread and extraordinary fear and panic results, he would, under the HSA, be guilty of terrorism, and not simply of rebellion or insurrection. The definition, as a result, is over-inclusive.

Next, the second element of the crime indicates that the “condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace” is merely an effect of the criminal act. This is counterintuitive. On the contrary, the very intent of the act must be to create that condition. This distinction is critical.

Clearly, the intent of the Light-A-Fire or MILF terrorist, in the paradigm examples above, was to create widespread and extraordinary fear and panic; however that was not realized, since most of the populace went about their daily lives largely unaffected. Consequently, their crimes would not, under the HSA, be classified as acts of terrorism. The definition, as a result, is also under-inclusive.

The point just made needs further emphasis and clarification. It is not necessary to the crime of terrorism that widespread and extraordinary fear and panic are successfully sown and created; it is enough that the fear and panic were intended by the terrorist for the crime to have been committed. Otherwise, acts normally considered terrorist in character would not be punished as acts of terrorism.

Challenges facing Teodoro

Challenges facing Teodoro

The Philippines has had as many civilians (12 in all) as military men among its 24 defense chiefs since it became an independent democratic republic in 1946. This 50-50 ratio is not a revealing measure at all of whether the concept of civilian supremacy over the military in Philippine democracy is working.

By next month, former Rep. Gilberto Teodoro of Tarlac, takes office as defense secretary, after serving out three consecutive terms in the House of Representatives. He takes over from Hermogenes Ebdane, a dyed-in-the-wool military man, who once headed the Philippine National Police and was among those who joined then Armed Forces Chief of Staff Gen. Angelo Reyes in withdrawing military support from the government of President Joseph Estrada in January 2001. Ebdane, a core loyalist to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, has been shuffled back as secretary of public works in the first Cabinet-level revamp following the disastrous defeat of the Arroyo administration in the May 2007 Senate election.

Teodoro becomes another civilian defense chief following the resignation of Avelino Cruz Jr., a lawyer in the Villaraza law firm and erstwhile political ally of the President. His appointment follows a key recommendation of the Feliciano Commission, which held an inquiry into the causes of the 2003 Oakwood mutiny led by a cabal of young officers. The Feliciano Commission reiterated the recommendation of the Davide Commission, which conducted an inquiry into 1986-89 coups during the Aquino presidency, to appoint a civilian as secretary of national defense. It said, “Beyond the need to institutionalize the supremacy of civilian authority over the military, the appointment of persons who have not had long and deep ties to the military, and who have not held positions in the military establishment that itself needs to be reformed, is essential if a reform program is to succeed.” Although military officers acquire civilian status upon retirement, the Feliciano report said, “they are likely to bring the rigidity of hierarchy, seniority, camaraderie and other aspects of military culture into the office of the DND that would obstruct reform.”

Teodoro’s appointment has been received with approval by a broad sector not only because it sustains the principle of civilian supremacy over the military but also because of his legislative experience, his credentials as lawyer (and a bar topnotcher) and his relative youth.

There is another significant aspect in his appointment. He is known to be a protégé of his uncle, Eduardo Cojuangco Jr., founder of the Nationalist People’s Coalition (NPC), a key ally of the President and component of the Lakas-CMD-dominated majority coalition in the House. In the May 2007 election, the NPC retained its block of 27 seats in the House, against the 90 held by Lakas-CMD and 47 by the President’s Kampi party.

Teodoro’s appointment to the defense department cannot simply be seen as the resealing of the President’s alliance with Cojuangco’s NPC or as a political reward for his support during earlier attempts to impeach her. The appointment represents a departure from the pattern of Cabinet appointments of the Arroyo administration as well as that of previous administrations in the post-Edsa People Power period from 1986. During that period, most Cabinet appointments came from mainly bureaucratic and technocratic sectors, none of which represented political constituencies based on regional bailiwicks. Teodoro’s appointment marks the return of a Cabinet recruitment that draws on a political base made up of the NPC’s constituency.

This factor gives Teodoro a platform to exercise autonomy instead of acting like a rubber stamp of the President. From this perspective, his appoint should be welcomed for its potential in initiating not only reforms in the military establishment but more so in asserting civilian control over the military that has become a hotbed of coup attempts and politicized military interventionists in politics.

As a man of the law and as a political creature of representative democracy, Teodoro brings with him into the defense department the kind of political culture needed to curb the rise of military assertiveness in the execution of President Arroyo’s total war that seeks to crush the communist insurgency by the end of her term in 2010. Teodoro enters the defense department at a critical juncture when he is expected to play a critical role in implementing the Human Security Act that takes effect on July 15. The issue that faces Teodoro is whether he would use the defense department as a counterfoil to the hardliners in both the Cabinet and the military, who are eager to use this piece of legislation to crack down on Leftwing activists operating inside the legal system. Will Teodoro be their compliant tool or will he make a difference in curbing the repressive tendencies of the ultra-Right forces in the Cabinet and the military establishment?

Even before the formation of the Antiterror Council that is mandated to implement the Antiterrorist Act, two anticommunist hardliners -- Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita (a former martial law general) and Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez -- have already preempted it by calling on the courts to outlaw the Communist Party of the Philippines, the New People’s Army, and the Abu Sayyaf. Their call came even before Teodoro could take office in August. The hardliners’ call seeks to turn back the clock to 1992, when the 1957 Anti-Subversion Act was repealed, legalizing the communist movement.

Will Teodoro make the defense department an instrument to enhance control of civil authority over wayward generals blamed for the wave of extrajudicial executions of political activists? Much is expected of him.

The Burmese thugs’ local relatives

The Burmese thugs’ local relatives

The political troglodytes strike again with their plan to deport foreign activists gathering for this week’s meeting of the Asean foreign ministers and their counterparts from Asean partner countries in the Asean Regional Forum.

Foreigners are not supposed to meddle in the domestic affairs of the country. So visitors are welcome to see the scenic sights, have a taste of the Manila nightlife and shoot the breeze with local activists. But standing at picket lines and marching in the streets are a no-no. That’s foreign intervention. And no comparison should be made with American soldiers helping track down Abu Sayyaf fighters. They are here with the express blessing of the government.

We ourselves are at times bemused by the sight of these scruffy do-gooders from the First World who travel thousands of miles to join the fight against injustice and oppression. Can’t they do battle against bigotry and prejudice, to name just one issue that is currently besetting advanced European countries, right in their own backyard?

Perhaps they see themselves as the contemporary incarnation of the volunteers of the International Brigade who fought against Franco’s barbarians in the Spanish civil war. The literary types, it seems, continue to draw inspiration from Christopher St. John Sprigg aka Christopher Caudwell, who was last seen manning a machine gun on the bank of the Jarama river.

But misplaced the idealism of these foreign activists may be, they personify humanity’s deepest longing for a better world, a longing that transcends national boundaries. Only the narrow-minded of the likes of Immigration Commissioner Marcelino Libanan and national security adviser Norberto Gonzales would see these fine young men and women as troublemakers if not outright threats to the security of the Republic.

Very likely, Libanan and Gonzales do not see the irony of throwing out visitors who want their voices heard in the coming deliberations on the Asean Charter, considered the most important document to be tackled by the regional group since the Asean founding declaration in 1967.

The Asean Charter seeks to provide the framework for regional cooperation in the 21st century. It seeks to ground relations among the 10 members on codified principles, on bedrock rules that would bind autocratic but economically advanced Singapore, Western-style democratic but economically middling Philippines and political and economic basket case Burma.

Among the more ticklish provisions of the proposed charter is the enshrinement of respect for human rights. We would like to believe the Philippines, with its long history of liberalism and democracy, however flawed, is in the forefront of efforts to press for the adoption of the draft provision which calls for "respect of fundamental freedoms, the promotion and protection of human rights and the promotion of social justice."

But the way Libanan and Gonzales are threatening foreign activists, they probably feel more comfortable aligning themselves with the thugs who rule Burma.

Self-policing and destroying discrimination

Self-policing and destroying discrimination

The abduction of Father Bossi. The beheadings of Marines in Basilan. The impending all-out war against the MILF. It has not been a good month for Muslim Filipinos or Moros and I have observed a rise of critical statements, in media and among colleagues and friends, about Moros and Muslims in general. This has compelled me to reissue, with minor changes, this article printed in The Moro Times as a reply to many of the criticisms hurled against Moros, specifically the overgeneralization that they are, by nature violent, and that they have failed to condemn the atrocities committed in Basilan and elsewhere:

Savages. Brutes. Cold-blooded killers.

These words—and worse—have been used to describe the Abu Sayyaf (other reports say that it was an MILF “lost command”) who killed and mutilated the bodies of soldiers in Basilan. They deserve those descriptions because what they did was vile and reprehensible. They deserve condemnation. Additionally, the Muslim community should denounce them all the more because they call themselves Moros and Muslims.

The Muslim community in the Philippines should take the initiative in policing its own ranks. Making it more personal, Moros like myself, should not hesitate to condemn acts of wanton violence, corrupt or immoral practices, and other wrongful deeds even if these are committed by fellow Muslims. Yes, we are an Ummah or Muslim community—although there are many who believe the Abu Sayyaf cannot be called Muslim because they violate the very tenets of Islam, particularly the faith’s focus on peace, nonviolence, and charity—but this fact should not make us hesitate to condemn fellow Moros when they are in the wrong. In fact, the opposite should be the case: we should react swiftly and, upon proper investigation, condemn—or if the word “condemn” seems too harsh, then we should take to task—fellow Muslims who are in error precisely because such action is borne of a sense of genuine brotherhood or, at the very least, because it serves to protect Muslims from our enemies within. Real brothers and sisters, out of love, tell us about our mistakes and shortcomings in order to allow us to change and correct ourselves. Since I love my Muslim brother and sister, then I must be the first to show him the error of his actions.

It is important to remember that the Muslims have numerous enemies from within. We already have enough foes from outside the Islamic community that will condemn us and discriminate against us. However, what is more insidious and dangerous are those who work to destroy the Ummah from the inside. These are Islamists who misuse, quote out of context, and distort verses from the Qu’ran and the Hadiths or prophetic traditions to justify their own misogynistic, anachronistic, and intolerant practices. Again, this is why we must police our ranks.

But doesn’t our policing our ranks just make the shortcomings and failures of Moros, as a community, all the more apparent to the Christian majority? Will this not just add fuel to the discrimination that Moros experience daily? Well, let us take the risk. It is the right thing to do. Moreover, why must the Muslim community in the Philippines have to make its decisions entirely based on what will be the perception of the Christian majority? While public perception is important, it is not paramount.

Certainly, doing what is correct should not be sacrificed at the altar of good public relations. Moreover, if Moros police their own ranks, then confidence and trust will be engendered between Muslim and Christian communities, which is the first step in addressing the issue of discrimination.

Discrimination against Muslims in the Philippines is an ugly and daily reality. It has many faces, one of which is to over­generalize and stereotype all Moros as one and the same. The beheadings by the Abu Sayyaf may cause some in the Christian majority—and we have already seen this in the opinion sections of the dailies—to make a hasty generalization and say that all Moros are savages and brutes and that there can never be peace with Muslims, so an all-out war is the only solution to the so-called Mindanao or Moro Problem. This is the heart of the problem in the discourse on the atrocities committed by the Abu Sayyaf—that people will hate them and call them savages and brutes precisely because they are Moros. The focus thus shifts from the acts of the Abu Sayyaf, which are vile indeed, to their ethnicity and, by the fact of their being Moros, their ostensible faith. This is why Muslims must take a strong stand in condemning these acts of violence to show that what must be hated, condemned, and reviled are the actions and perpetrators and not the Moro community as a whole.

The distinction between actions and actor and Islam and Islamist may, at times, be a fine one. Accordingly, the stereotyping of Moros as violent, brutal, and savage becomes all the more difficult with reports of the atrocities committed by the Abu Sayyaf and other Islamic groups. This is the reason why the Moro community can no longer be a silent and passive community. We must, therefore, speak up, be noticed, take stands on issues of peace and tolerance, and be the counterweight to the negative perception. An active and engaged Moro community is required to fight against stereotyping and discrimination.

Peace-loving. Tolerant. Successful. These are the adjectives that—hopefully if the Moro community takes the lead in self-policing—will come first to mind when describing Muslims in the Philippines.

Backing away from the edge in Basilan

Backing away from the edge in Basilan

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Father Giancarlo Bossi

Father Giancarlo Bossi

AFTER 40 days of capti­vity Father Giancarlo Bossi is finally free. It was such a relief to see him, gaunt as he was and obviously tired and stressed, at the press conference organized by government. Poor Father Bossi! My heart went out to him as I watched him control his emotions. Could the government not give him time to recover from his ordeal before exhibiting him to media?

I can’t wait for Father Bossi to tell us his story. His kidnapping has been blamed on the Abu Sayyaf, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, a rogue MILF commander, and on criminal kidnap thugs. Early on, there was the story that his kidnap was intended to discredit the provincial governor of Sibugay who had refused to give in to the demand of criminals for a pay-off during the campaign period. So many questions need to be answered.

How does the horrendous mutilation of the marines killed in a firefight in Basilan a couple of weeks ago figure in the Father Bossi case? One story attributed the firefight to the marines entering MILF territory in Basilan, while searching for Father Bossi. Another blames the encounter on the gruesome murder of a local imam, old and no threat to anyone. The locals blamed the military for his murder.

Whether the cause was the death of the imam or the search for Father Bossi, it is not so much the killing of the marines that has raised the hackles of the public but the mutilation of the dead. Many soldiers have been killed in encounters over the past years but these have been accepted as consequences of the war on terror or the campaign against lawless elements. It was the gruesome discovery of the mutilated marines that jolted several leaders and media personalities to call for a resumption of the all out war policy against the MILF, a demand to junk the peace process.

Before we jump into conclusions that could derail an already stalled peace process, we really ought to find out what happened. Understand that, under Islamic law in several countries, criminals can be executed by decapitation. Gruesome as it is, death penalty by decapitation or by electrocution or by lethal injection has the same result: death. However, the dead must be treated with respect. Mutilation of the dead is unacceptable, in Islam or in other faiths. The locals cannot believe that Moro mujahideen or warriors would commit such an un-Islamic act. The locals fear that the mutilation of the dead marines is part of a scenario crafted for political reasons.

Forgive me for speculating but the timing is so suspicious. The Antiterror Law (I can’t bring myself to call it the Human Security Act) was to take effect a few days after the discovery of the dead. The anger over the mutilated soldiers was enough to convince many that the Antiterror Law was indeed necessary.

Tomorrow, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo will deliver her State of the Nation address. Father Bossi will most likely be Exhibit A to show her administration’s resolve and success in fighting the war on terror. As DILG Secretary Puno has confidently proclaimed, the government will pursue the terrorists and, never having given in to demands for ransom in the past, will not give in now. (I suppose propagandists stick by the rule that if you say it often enough, people will believe you.)

On the SONA: I have learned to treat the SONA as propaganda, thus preventing me from taking the promises made too seriously. However, since sound bytes are essential, here are some promises we would like to hear:

• Promise support for peace processes

• Promise to protect human rights as the Antiterror Law is being implemented

• Promise to support the recommendations of the Summit on Extrajudicial Killings

• Promise to educate our young

• Promise to give Mindanao and ARMM full support for economic development

• Promise to solve the energy problem

• And the biggest promise of all: an end to corruption

In the meantime, I promise to buy my two sons and my daughter BMWs for their birthdays. (Sure, Mom…)

The never ending Basilan war: who started it?

The never ending Basilan war: who started it?

Military officials and their political superiors should resist the temptation of blindly lashing out at the secessionist rebels who ambushed a Marine patrol and then beheaded the fatalities on the government side.

AFP spokesman Lt. Col. Bartolome Bacarro yesterday said security forces are being pre-positioned to undertake "punitive action" against the rebels. This was a sharp departure from AFP chief Gen. Hermogenes Esperon’s statement three days ago that the military would not engage in actions that would jeopardize peace negotiations with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. The turnaround, we surmise, came after Gloria Arroyo ordered the AFP to get the "savages."

Beheading fallen enemies is a barbaric act. The MILF should be held to account for this gruesome violation of the rules of war. But striking against the rebels in retribution, with the high probability of inflicting "collateral damage" (to borrow a Vietnam War euphemism made fashionable by Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez) on non-combatants, is not the way to even up the score.

We cringe at hearing the phrase "punitive action" from the AFP spokesman. We are almost a 100 years removed from the "punitive expeditions" mounted by Jack Pershing against communities around Lake Lanao in response to acts of "Moro treachery," mostly ambuscades directed at small American patrols and isolated outposts.

Communities were torched. Crops were destroyed. Residents were driven away from their homes. After the punishment, American soldiers would pull back to their encampments. Residents would return to bury their dead, re-thatch their nipa huts and poke holes with their dibbles sticks in the ground for their corn and rice seeds.

Let’s build a case before the joint government-MILF committee on cessation of hostilities. Let’s harness the peace monitors led by a Malaysian general to investigate how the clash started in the first place.

The AFP said the Marines were ambushed on their way home after an operation aimed at checking reports kidnapped Italian priest Giancarlo Bossi had been taken to Basilan by his abductors. The reports filed by a new team of ABS-CBN, however, showed the Marine unit with which the team was "embedded" was on its way to its objective when it was met by gunfire.

Perhaps this was a different unit from the one to which the beheaded Marines belonged. But the question that begs for an answer is why the Marines were tramping on territory which the MILF officials said was clearly identified as theirs on truce maps.

We are not quite sold to the wisdom of recognizing territories as MILF enclaves under the current truce. There is only one Republic after all which holds legitimate sway over these islands.

But the fact is there is such an agreement where government forces are barred from entering so-called MILF territories. The agreement allows for pursuit by security forces of "lawless" elements. It is required, however, that government notify the MILF of planned incursions, precisely to prevent misunderstanding that could lead to shooting on the ground.

There is more to this latest fighting in Basilan than the viciousness and barbarity of war. We should look into the how and why the clash took place and who provoked and started it.