Arroyo must review stance on U.S.-led war

Arroyo must review stance on U.S.-led war

Conrado de Quiros, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Asia News Network, Manila

It's not Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, a presidential daughter and
recent beneficiary of people power, who is giving voice to
Southeast Asia in the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
forum; it is Indonesian President Megawati Soekarnoputri, another
presidential daughter and beneficiary of people power, who is.

In contrast to Macapagal's mindless repetition of the American
mantra on anti-terrorism, Megawati has risen to proclaim before
the world: "Whoever commits terror must be punished. However, the
search for and the bringing to justice of the perpetrators of
terror or those parties who harbor them must be in accordance
with law that is generally acceptable.

"It is unacceptable that someone, a group, or even a
government -- reasoning that they are searching for perpetrators
-- attack a people or another country for whatever reason. Blood
cannot be cleansed by blood."

Megawati obviously has a better grasp of the sentiments of the
region, of the folly that is the American bombing of Afghanistan;
she has a better grasp of what it takes to fight terrorism.

Macapagal might be really desperate to cull American favor to
boost her chances in 2004. She would delude herself to think she
would loom large as a world-class statesman with it. The image of
the Philippines as America's right arm in Asia has never elicited
awe from other Asian countries, it has elicited laughter.

At the very least, the tack is suicidal. The overseas Filipino
workers (OFW), as government keeps reminding us, are the
lifeblood of the country, who keep the economy afloat. Well,
where are many of those OFWs but in the Middle East?

The Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) has already issued an
advisory to Filipinos in those parts of the world to not be too
vocal about their support for the American cause to avoid
trouble. It did so in the wake of the shooting of a Canadian and
his Filipino wife while they shopped in a mall in Kuwait. The
Canadian died while the Filipino was seriously wounded.

But the DFA misses its target. Its advisory is not best issued
to the OFWs, most of whom possess not only common sense but
possess uncommon ability to see things from the perspective of
the people they live with.

It is best issued to the President of the Philippines herself.

Macapagal's espousal of the American cause, done with a zeal
over and above the call of duty, opens our OFWs up not just to
mayhem but to all sorts of discrimination. It openly invites
maltreatment, quite apart from shipping back to the Philippines.
It will not make Filipinos the first choice in hiring or the last
in firing. You would think that the APEC, being expressly
concerned with the survival of nations, would inspire some sense
of realism in Macapagal. It has not.

But Macapagal's tack is not just suicidal, it is wrongheaded.
It is not just the Muslim countries -- Indonesia and Malaysia --
that are lukewarm to the anti-terrorist cause being espoused by
the Americans in APEC. It is also the other Asian countries. You
won't hear the Indo-Chinese countries rooting for it. You won't
hear Thailand applauding it. You won't even hear Singapore, the
most iron-fisted country in the region, trumpeting it.

Who in God's name wants terrorism? But the point is not what
and when, it is how and why. That is what the other countries, as
voiced out by Megawati, want to know. She does not speak for the
Muslim countries alone, she speaks for the Asian continent as a
whole.

Only the Philippines is willing to believe there can only be
one campaign against terror, and that is the one America is
calling for. Only the Philippines is willing to believe that
either you agree to such things as the bombing of Afghanistan,
the rearming of Southeast Asia, and the blanket endorsement of
American global policy, or you are a supporter of terrorism, if
not a terrorist yourself.

Our own experience in dealing with the Abu Sayyaf should have
shown the folly of that belief. The Abu Sayyaf is obviously a
terrorist group. How to destroy them? We answered that by
unleashing the dogs of war on the island of Basilan, reasoning
that the people there were guilty of harboring them, and must pay
the price for it.

The result being that instead of alienating the Abu Sayyaf
from the people of Basilan and the Muslim community in general,
we gave the latter a reason if not to find common cause with them
at least to commiserate with them.

The same is true of Afghanistan. How to destroy Osama bin
Laden and his Al-Qaeda network? The United States has answered
that by unleashing the winds of war on Afghanistan, reasoning
that the people there are guilty of harboring them and must pay
the price for it.

The result being that instead of alienating the terrorists
from the Afghan people and the Muslim ummah (community)
generally, it has given the latter if not a reason to find common
cause with them at least to commiserate with them.

And now we want to internationalize that idiocy and make it
the hallmark of our foreign policy? No wonder we call it a
foreign policy. It is monumentally foreign to us.