Pleasing everyone
Pleasing everyone
Updated 11:12pm (Mla time) Nov 14, 2004
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the November 15, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
I'M glad to be back after being abroad for a couple of weeks. The one thing I followed with attention was the abduction of two of our compatriots in the Middle East. Angelito Nayan, along with a couple of other United Nations workers, was taken by Afghan rebels in Afghanistan. The rebels demanded the release of their comrades by the Afghan government. Robert Tarongoy, along with five employees of the Saudi Arabian Trading and Constructing Co. (a Nepalese, an American and three Iraqis), was snatched by gunmen in Iraq. Their captors demanded $12 million for the American and $10 million for Tarongoy.
US Ambassador Francis Ricciardone says this is the fruit of giving in to terrorists, which the Philippines did to get Angelo de la Cruz out of his fix. "When you make concessions to the kidnappers, you invite more kidnappings. They will identify your country or state as giving in and then you get more of the same."
Not at all. Depends on the kidnappers and what they want.
That's true if you're dealing with ordinary kidnappers like the Abu Sayyaf. And it is a testament only to the propensity of government to blow things out of proportion-the better to justify its inability to solve criminality-that it depicted it as a terrorist organization. It is nothing of the kind. It is a criminal gang masquerading as a militant Muslim faction. It is no better than the other kidnap groups that stalk this country. The only difference is that other kidnap groups specialize on the Chinese while the Abu Sayyaf specializes on foreigners.
You pay ransom to free their hostages and they will target you again and again. All you have to do is talk to the Chinese victims. At least those of them who have not yet left the country, or those of them who have not hired, well, let us just say professionals, to bring their abductors to leave this world.
And that's true if what the kidnappers want is something you cannot possibly give. It's not true if all the kidnappers want is merely for you to leave them the hell alone.
Neither was the case in the abduction of De la Cruz, and neither is the case in the abduction of Nayan and Tarongoy. In the case of De la Cruz, neither were the abductors ordinary criminals nor was their demand-for the Philippines to pull out its troops from Iraq-unreasonable. In the case of Tarongoy, the demand of $10 million might suggest his kidnappers are less ideologically motivated, but that is dispelled by the fact that they released the Nepalese and two Iraqis immediately. A case of ay mali. The demand for ransom they reserved for the American and Tarongoy.
What this suggests is that the reason Arab militants-call them terrorists or call them freedom fighters, one man's patriot is another man's tormentor-continue to kidnap Filipinos is that they see the Philippine government not as one to give in so easily to them, but as one not to give up so easily on George W. Bush. Or put another way, the reason Arab rebels continue to kidnap Filipinos is not because the Philippine government bows down to those who hold its nationals hostage but because it continues to help the United States hold their country hostage.
You need no further proof of that than that none of the victims of the Arab kidnappers has so far been Malaysians, Indonesians, Thais, Vietnamese, Sri Lankans, Chinese, Indians, who are to be found plentifully in their countries as well. Three Filipinos in the space of a few months rule out the idea of coincidence completely. I did say before that the only accident in the case of De la Cruz was that it was he and not another Filipino who was kidnapped. But it was no accident that a Filipino was kidnapped. Nor will it be an accident that more Filipinos will be kidnapped in the future.
The solution is simple: Put as wide a berth between us and Bush's war and apologize to the Iraqis whose only crime against us was to give many of our countrymen home and hearth. That isn't just practical, that is moral. We should never have joined the war in the first place. It was an immoral war done for immoral reasons and wrought with immoral haste. And one that stood to devastate this country enormously, as the Economist warned shortly before the war. The one member of the "coalition of the willing" that stood to reap the whirlwind, it said, was the Philippines which had several million workers in the Middle East. We are seeing that bitter harvest today.
Being tough is a virtue only when it is backed by reason and conscience. We can be tough, and that is by declaring we will have nothing to do with Bush's war in Iraq and by standing our ground on that score. Why should our friendship with America rest on playing the stooge, or being uto-uto at this cost? That is not friendship, that is insanity.
Can anything be more idiotic than that we have to ban our nationals from working in Iraq? Other Asian countries do not have such a ban, they do not have to. They do not have to worry that their nationals will be kidnapped. What do we do now, ban our workers from going to Afghanistan as well? Or to Saudi Arabia and Jordan, if Filipinos are kidnapped there? Where will the ban end?
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was repeatedly warned about the dangers of being Bush's sidekick in Asia, it was an invitation to being kicked in the side. Does it take a brain surgeon to see that, with all our OFWs in the Gulf? She did not listen, she went on to cajole the banana countries of the world to unite behind the war. Now she is in a quandary, and both the Americans and the Arabs are pissed off with her.
The old saying says it all: You try to please everyone, you'll end up pleasing no one.
Well, maybe masochists and Filipinos, but that's another story.
Updated 11:12pm (Mla time) Nov 14, 2004
By Conrado de Quiros
Inquirer News Service
Editor's Note: Published on page A14 of the November 15, 2004 issue of the Philippine Daily Inquirer.
I'M glad to be back after being abroad for a couple of weeks. The one thing I followed with attention was the abduction of two of our compatriots in the Middle East. Angelito Nayan, along with a couple of other United Nations workers, was taken by Afghan rebels in Afghanistan. The rebels demanded the release of their comrades by the Afghan government. Robert Tarongoy, along with five employees of the Saudi Arabian Trading and Constructing Co. (a Nepalese, an American and three Iraqis), was snatched by gunmen in Iraq. Their captors demanded $12 million for the American and $10 million for Tarongoy.
US Ambassador Francis Ricciardone says this is the fruit of giving in to terrorists, which the Philippines did to get Angelo de la Cruz out of his fix. "When you make concessions to the kidnappers, you invite more kidnappings. They will identify your country or state as giving in and then you get more of the same."
Not at all. Depends on the kidnappers and what they want.
That's true if you're dealing with ordinary kidnappers like the Abu Sayyaf. And it is a testament only to the propensity of government to blow things out of proportion-the better to justify its inability to solve criminality-that it depicted it as a terrorist organization. It is nothing of the kind. It is a criminal gang masquerading as a militant Muslim faction. It is no better than the other kidnap groups that stalk this country. The only difference is that other kidnap groups specialize on the Chinese while the Abu Sayyaf specializes on foreigners.
You pay ransom to free their hostages and they will target you again and again. All you have to do is talk to the Chinese victims. At least those of them who have not yet left the country, or those of them who have not hired, well, let us just say professionals, to bring their abductors to leave this world.
And that's true if what the kidnappers want is something you cannot possibly give. It's not true if all the kidnappers want is merely for you to leave them the hell alone.
Neither was the case in the abduction of De la Cruz, and neither is the case in the abduction of Nayan and Tarongoy. In the case of De la Cruz, neither were the abductors ordinary criminals nor was their demand-for the Philippines to pull out its troops from Iraq-unreasonable. In the case of Tarongoy, the demand of $10 million might suggest his kidnappers are less ideologically motivated, but that is dispelled by the fact that they released the Nepalese and two Iraqis immediately. A case of ay mali. The demand for ransom they reserved for the American and Tarongoy.
What this suggests is that the reason Arab militants-call them terrorists or call them freedom fighters, one man's patriot is another man's tormentor-continue to kidnap Filipinos is that they see the Philippine government not as one to give in so easily to them, but as one not to give up so easily on George W. Bush. Or put another way, the reason Arab rebels continue to kidnap Filipinos is not because the Philippine government bows down to those who hold its nationals hostage but because it continues to help the United States hold their country hostage.
You need no further proof of that than that none of the victims of the Arab kidnappers has so far been Malaysians, Indonesians, Thais, Vietnamese, Sri Lankans, Chinese, Indians, who are to be found plentifully in their countries as well. Three Filipinos in the space of a few months rule out the idea of coincidence completely. I did say before that the only accident in the case of De la Cruz was that it was he and not another Filipino who was kidnapped. But it was no accident that a Filipino was kidnapped. Nor will it be an accident that more Filipinos will be kidnapped in the future.
The solution is simple: Put as wide a berth between us and Bush's war and apologize to the Iraqis whose only crime against us was to give many of our countrymen home and hearth. That isn't just practical, that is moral. We should never have joined the war in the first place. It was an immoral war done for immoral reasons and wrought with immoral haste. And one that stood to devastate this country enormously, as the Economist warned shortly before the war. The one member of the "coalition of the willing" that stood to reap the whirlwind, it said, was the Philippines which had several million workers in the Middle East. We are seeing that bitter harvest today.
Being tough is a virtue only when it is backed by reason and conscience. We can be tough, and that is by declaring we will have nothing to do with Bush's war in Iraq and by standing our ground on that score. Why should our friendship with America rest on playing the stooge, or being uto-uto at this cost? That is not friendship, that is insanity.
Can anything be more idiotic than that we have to ban our nationals from working in Iraq? Other Asian countries do not have such a ban, they do not have to. They do not have to worry that their nationals will be kidnapped. What do we do now, ban our workers from going to Afghanistan as well? Or to Saudi Arabia and Jordan, if Filipinos are kidnapped there? Where will the ban end?
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was repeatedly warned about the dangers of being Bush's sidekick in Asia, it was an invitation to being kicked in the side. Does it take a brain surgeon to see that, with all our OFWs in the Gulf? She did not listen, she went on to cajole the banana countries of the world to unite behind the war. Now she is in a quandary, and both the Americans and the Arabs are pissed off with her.
The old saying says it all: You try to please everyone, you'll end up pleasing no one.
Well, maybe masochists and Filipinos, but that's another story.
posted by Dante at 12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home