Analysis

Confronting Terror

The Arroyo government does not need more powers to confront terrorism, it needs less of it.  On the other hand, the Filipino people must not surrender their rights to confront terrorism, it needs more of it.

BY BENJIE OLIVEROS
Bulatlat

Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and newly-installed AFP chief of staff Gen. Hermogenes Esperon chat during his handover ceremony in Manila, July 21

The alleged foiled plot of terrorists to bomb commercial planes shuttling from Heathrow Airport in Britain to the United States last August 6 sent the government’s alarm bells ringing once again.  Security tightened at airports, piers, bus terminals, and even at LRT and MRT stations.  The commuting public was told not to bring with them in planes, passenger ships, buses and commuter trains perfumes, bottled water, toothpaste and the like. Those caught with these would be asked to use these in front of security personnel before being allowed to board. So unless you want to show off your favourite perfume or cologne; drink water even if you are not thirsty; or brush your teeth in full view of other passengers, one must heed this public warning.

But much more “embarrassing” is the renewed government pitch for the passage of the proposed Anti-Terrorism Bill (ATB).  Sen. Aquilino Pimentel hit the nail on the head when he said that unless the spate of political killings is stopped, the proposed bill should be rejected.

Malacañang, the presidential palace, reacted by claiming that there is no connection between the passage of the ATB and political killings, and that it is doing everything to put a stop to what Amnesty International called as “politically-motivated pattern of killings.”

The evil connection

As of August 17, Karapatan has recorded 729 cases of political killings, 181 forcible disappearances, and 350 victims of frustrated killings.  An additional 18 activists were killed and six disappeared since President Arroyo delivered her recent state of the nation address where she praised Maj. Gen. Jovito Palparan, tagged as the “butcher” by human rights groups and people’s organizations, for allegedly being responsible for the spate of political killings in regions where he assumed command of army units, and condemned political killings “in the harshest terms possible.”

Both these political killings and terrorist bombings have claimed many lives.  Table 1 shows the pattern of political killings. 

Table 2 shows the loss of lives due to terrorist bombings. 

What makes both appalling is that it claims as its victims unarmed, unaware, and innocent civilians. On the other hand, political killings are targeted, mainly directed against leaders, members, and supporters of left-leaning organizations.

The Arroyo government has condemned bombings and political killings and claimed that it is doing everything to put a stop to these heinous crimes. The Abu Sayyaf bandit group was supposedly reduced to an insignificant few and the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) has time and again launched massive military operations in Mindanao purportedly to flush out terrorists.   As for political killings, Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye professes to the Arroyo government’s sincerity in solving the killings by citing Macapagal-Arroyo’s public condemnation of the killings, her order to law enforcement agencies to solve 10 cases in 10 weeks, and her supposed plan to form an independent commission. 

But both bombings and political killings continue in spite of government pronouncements. 

The government is even suspected of being involved in at least two incidents in 2003, the March 4 Davao International Airport and the April 2 Sasa Wharf bombings, as well as other bombings in Mindanao at that time. 

On the other hand, Karapatan and other human rights groups, progressive party list groups, Bayan Muna (People First), Anakpawis (Toiling Masses), and Gabriela, and militant organizations under the Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan or New Patriotic Alliance), whose members are the targets of political killings, accuse the Arroyo government of masterminding the killings as part of its counter-insurgency plan dubbed Oplan Bantay Laya. 

The Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International (AI), and various international groups that have conducted fact finding missions in the country blame the Arroyo government for having been directly involved, “or else have tolerated, acquiesced to, or been complicit in them.”

The August 15, 2006 report of AI read, “The common features in the methodology of the attacks, leftist profile of the victims, and an apparent culture of impunity shielding the perpetrators, has led Amnesty International to believe that the killings are not an unconnected series of criminal murders, armed robberies or unlawful killings.  Rather they constitute a pattern of politically targeted extrajudicial executions taking place within the broader context of a continuing counter-insurgency campaign.”        

The involvement of the Arroyo government in the killings is further validated by the fallacy of its arguments. PNP Deputy Director General Avelino Razon, who heads the task force formed by the government to investigate the killings, immediately pointed to killings allegedly committed by the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and New People’s Army (NPA).  But the most revealing reaction came from Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita. He said that claims that the government was behind the killings was “a propaganda line” similar to the accusations made by AI in the 1970s against the Marcos regime, when he was still a military colonel. Ermita seems to forget that former President Marcos was internationally-known as a human rights violator and was even convicted by the Federal District Court of Honolulu in a class suit filed by relatives and victims of human rights violations.   

Terrorism defined

The United Nations has not yet agreed on a common definition of terrorism.  But it has an “academic consensus definition” written by terrorism expert Prof. Alex P. Schmid.  It reads, “Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought.”

In bombings, the victims are chosen randomly.  It is done either in crowded places for maximum impact or in isolated places if the intent was merely to create fear without hurting anybody. 

Considering this definition, do political killings not constitute acts of terrorism?  Political killings are currently being done within the context of counter-insurgency operations.  Counter-insurgency operations are supposedly directed against the CPP, NPA, and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP).  But the targets of political killings are members of legal organizations and the most articulate critics of the regime. The intent is to sow fear among the populace.

Extra-judicial executions of suspected members of the CPP-NPA-NDFP are wrong and are violations of international humanitarian law.

Political killings of unarmed civilians, especially in the scale being done now, already constitute terrorism. Add to this the militarization of the countrysides; the illegal house-to-house searches; the manhandling of ordinary folk for the slightest reason such as failure to produce cedulas (community tax certificates); the threats to local officials who complain of abuses by soldiers, the public labeling of legal organizations as “enemies of the state; and the filing of cases based on trumped-up charges and fabricated witnesses and these constitute state terrorism. 

Imagine what the Arroyo government will do if it is granted the powers it is seeking under the proposed ATB.  It will not only act with impunity, it will even be able to legally justify its violations of human rights and international humanitarian law under the pretext of combating terrorism.  And given the legal mandate, it can broaden its repressive and violent acts to victimize not only left-leaning organizations and personalities but also all those opposing its continued claim to power, its policies and its programs.    

Confronting terror

The Arroyo government does not need more powers to confront terrorism, it needs less of it.  On the other hand, the Filipino people must not surrender their rights to confront terrorism, it needs more of it.

Dictatorship and the concomitant intensification of oppression, repression, and exploitation is the breeding ground of terrorism, both of the official and unofficial kind. Political killings and other forms of state terror can only thrive for as long as the people are paralyzed with fear or apathy. 

Greater democracy is the best antidote to terrorism, both of the official and unofficial kind.      

It has been said that public awareness and vigilance is the only way to confront the terror threat. This applies to bombings and more so to state terrorism.  Only an aware and vigilant people militantly asserting their rights can effectively confront and subdue terrorism, especially of the state-sponsored kind. Bulatlat

BACK TO TOP ■  PRINTER-FRIENDLY VERSION  ■   COMMENT

© 2006 Bulatlat ■  Alipato Media Center

Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.