The public confusion over all those 'intelligence reports'

The public confusion over all those 'intelligence reports'

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

An intelligence report says that al-Qaeda, with the aid of the
Jamaah Islamiyah, is set to sow terror in Southeast Asia. Their
next targets are Taiwan and Cambodia, and Vietnam, and soon to
follow are Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore. They will be doing
this as part of the first anniversary of 9/11. The region would
do well to prepare for this new wave of terror.

That is all very nice, except for one thing: Why?

Why would al-Qaeda or the Jamaah Islamiyah or both want to
target the countries of Southeast Asia? Why in particular would
they want to bomb those countries that are predominantly Muslim?
And why would they want to do that as part of the logic of 9/11?

It's these kinds of reports we're being fed daily, and for
some strange reason we keep biting into them hook, line and
sinker. For some strange reason, we keep describing them as the
product of "intelligence" without meaning that as sarcasm.

Those reports clearly are meant to suggest that, like
communism during the days of the Cold War, terrorism has become
monolithic, unpredictable and driven to conquer the world. Which
is meant to suggest further that we would be right to support,
among others, a U.S. strike against Iraq, as Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo and her boys in the National Security Council want,
because terrorism is just one humongous whole.

That was Arroyo's theme in the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation forum (APEC). The whole world, she said, was in
flames, lit up by terrorists who had banded together in an unholy
alliance. It was time APEC rallied behind the United States and
fought back. If she got anyone to listen, only she knew.

All evidence point to the contrary.

So far, what have we got by way of acts of terrorism? We've
had 9/11, we've had the bombing at Bali, we've had the hostage
crisis in Moscow and we've had the bombings in various parts of
the Philippines. All of which suggest that far from being
monolithic, unpredictable and driven to conquer the world,
terrorism is fragmented, predictable and driven by desperation.

The attack in New York was done by al-Qaeda, or so we assume
it to be, though that has never really been proven. What went by
way of proof was Osama bin Laden taking the report of 9/11
gleefully. You wonder how George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld would
react in private to news of the destruction of an entire section
of Iran, Iraq, or North Korea. Is that proof they did it?

We do not know who bombed Bali. We do know however that it was
an attack against foreigners, particularly Westerners, and not
against Indonesians. That may affect Indonesia in terms of
tourism income, but why should its leaders now start fearing that
their country is an object of hate by "international terrorists"?
Why should the leaders of Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, the
Indochinese countries do so?

The hostage-taking in Moscow on the other hand was done by
Chechen rebels, who had been waging a war of attrition against
Vladimir Putin's government for some time now. To now see them as
having teamed up with al-Qaeda for the purpose of world
domination is to fly in the face of reason. In each of these, you
have a different hand (hence, the fragmentation), you have a
different reason (hence, the predictability), and you have a
group of people resorting to violence from a sense of being
aggrieved. The last does not justify the methods, but it makes
the motives intelligible.

There is a more patent act of terrorism that's been taking
place right before our eyes, but for even stranger reasons, we
are not condemning it as terrorism or seeing its perpetrators as
part of an international conspiracy.

That is the systematic destruction of Ramallah by Ariel
Sharon, or indeed, his systematic destruction of the Palestinian
state by laying siege to its duly constituted leader. Sharon now
constitutes the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East--he
has defied several UN resolutions to cease and desist--but unlike
Saddam Hussein, is not only not being ostracized but continues to
enjoy U.S. support.

The case of the Philippines finally is explainable in equally
rational terms. Maybe some of the bombings were done by
terrorists. But if so, then we must ask ourselves, if the
terrorists are local, why they continue to pose a threat to
society despite Balikatan, and if they are foreign, why they are
targeting this country rather than others.

The Bali bombings, to repeat, were not aimed at locals, ours
are. At the very least, that must make us wonder if Arroyo is
right to put this country in harm's way by her war rhetoric. At
the very most, we must wonder about the plight of our OFWs in the
Middle East, who are made very vulnerable by that same war
rhetoric.

But more than that, the other bombings are not being done by
terrorists but by common criminals. The alarming thing in this
country in fact, as shown by mayors, ex and current, being gunned
down one after the other, on top of kidnapping, robbery,
extortion, rape and murder, all in broad daylight, is not
terrorism but crime.

There is a monumental danger, which media themselves should be
faulted with, in lumping the two together. It puts crime beyond
the pale of explanation or solution. The equation is that since
the mayhem is being wreaked by a nameless, faceless, shapeless
mass, the government has every reason to feel powerless before
it.

The government has every reason to not be able to do anything
about it. It is a ready-made excuse for failure. No, more than
that, it is a ready-made excuse to reward failure. To now curb
crime, which has been promoted to terrorism, the authorities need
more budget allocations, more powers and more fascistic methods.
That is the real terror.

Next time you hear another intelligence report, ask yourself
whose intelligence is being questioned.