Money talks louder than diplomacy

Philippine Daily Inquirer, Asia News Network, Manila

The U.S. offer to reward tipsters with as much as US$5 million for "information leading to the arrest or conviction" of Abu Sayyaf leaders can be understood in two ways: As an admission that the military option is not working, or second, as an indication that the war against the Abu Sayyaf has reached a new and critical stage.

Almost half a year since American soldiers first arrived in Zamboanga City and Basilan Island as part of a stepped-up counter-terrorism initiative, the last three hostages -- American missionaries Martin and Gracia Burnham and Filipino nurse Ediborah Yap -- remain in captivity. By and large, the Philippine military's campaign against the bandits has been successful: Forcing the gang's strength down to less than 10 percent, causing 15 Dos Palmas hostages to be released, rescued or ransomed under intense military pressure, containing the hostage crisis to an increasingly smaller area in the jungles of Basilan.

But one year after the Burnhams were abducted, the most successful economy in world history may have finally realized that it was time to unleash the ultimate weapon in non-nuclear warfare: Money.

This is not the first time that the United States has used this weapon. It has offered even bigger sums to draw information about al-Qaeda founder Osama bin Laden ($25 million) and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar ($10 million). Judging by the results, the weapon has been a dud -- but that is probably because ideology can serve as the equivalent of a bullet-proof vest, and the followers of Bin Laden and Omar are nothing if not ideological.

The Abu Sayyaf situation, however, may prove different. Starting as a band of Islamic ideologues, the group quickly turned into a gang of bandits. They continue to hide behind a smokescreen of fundamentalist Islamic slogans, but they have nothing in common with the great majority of peace-loving and devout Muslims in the country.

The offer of reward, as Acting Press Secretary Silvestre Afable correctly explained the other day, is not an infringement on our sovereignty or a reckless intervention into our national affairs. American hostages are involved, and the U.S. government is therefore well within its rights to make such an offer.

It bears emphasizing that the offer is good worldwide -- that is, even citizens of other countries who may have the right information come under the program.

American citizens are among the hostages, the U.S. government is putting up the money, the offer is international in scope: Why shouldn't the U.S. government representative make the announcement?

The offer is part of the Rewards for Justice Program of the U.S. Department of State; established in 1984 during the Reagan administration under the Act to Combat International Terrorism and administered by the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security. This means that the money is available only for a specific purpose. We belabor this point because of the contention of Rep. Apolinario Lozada that the money should have gone instead to Filipino soldiers pursuing the Abu Sayyaf. Perhaps Lozada means well, but his argument assumes either that our soldiers are mendicants (waiting for the next dole) or they are mercenaries (waiting for the big payoff). And that the money meant by law to reward informants can be reappropriated to reward the very agents of the law acting on the information.

The country's soldiers have paid a high price in the year-long pursuit of the Abu Sayyaf gang, in terms of lost lives and stained post-Lamitan reputations. Rewarding them with millions of dollars for simply doing their job is a kind of honor they can do without.