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.