United States has bowed down to terrorists before

Raul J. Palabrica, Philippine Daily Inquirer, Asia News Network, Manila

For giving in to the demand of the Iraqi kidnappers of Angelo de la Cruz instead of following the United States' no-negotiation policy with terrorists, the administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has become a pariah in the U.S. Department of State.

The decision to pull out the Philippine humanitarian contingent from that embattled nation was described by the Department of State as a capitulation to terrorism that sends the wrong signal to terrorists all over the world.

The Washington Times, a newspaper that is known to mouth the line of whichever political party is in power in the United States, commented that "Manila's act of cowardice... proves to terrorists that kidnapping and executing innocent civilians can successfully pressure government to cave in to their demands."

Not surprisingly, Australia, which its prime minister, John Howard, has declared as the right hand of the United States in this part of the world, echoed the American line with a passion reminiscent of a former ward hungry for the attention of its old colonial master.

Singapore, through the government-controlled The Straits Times newspaper, similarly condemned President Arroyo's decision to put a premium on De la Cruz's life. The move was not surprising; the city-state had no choice but keep in step with the United States and Australia on this issue.

Sandwiched between two militarily powerful Muslim countries, Indonesia and Malaysia, that resent its arrogant attitude toward its neighbors, Singapore needs the protective mantle of the United States and Australia in case push comes to shove.

In accusing the Philippine government of weakness in dealing with De la Cruz's kidnappers, the United States has conveniently forgotten that it had violated several times its much-ballyhooed policy of not negotiating with or giving in to the demands of terrorists.

The most prominent example of caving in to terrorists by the U.S. happened in 1979 when Iranian militants seized the U.S. embassy in Iran. The world's strongest military power was helpless in obtaining the release of 66 (later 52) diplomatic personnel.

An ambitious rescue mission collapsed even before it started. No amount of saber-rattling and threats of retaliatory action could free the hostages. The ordeal ended two years later under an arms-for-hostages deal that saw the delivery of sophisticated war materiel to Iran (then engaged in a protracted war with Iraq) in exchange for the release of the hostages.

They were freed just hours after U.S. President Ronald Reagan's inauguration on Jan. 20, 1981. The swap was secretly forged by Reagan's operatives even while President Jimmy Carter was still in office. Like a dramatic Hollywood movie, the hostages returned home as Reagan entered the White House and Carter retreated to his peanut farm in Georgia in humiliation over his failure to protect the American personnel in Iran.

As expected, Reagan's political enemies cried foul over the clandestine operation. But the Reagan administration was quick to justify its action by saying that the safety of the hostages was paramount to all other policy considerations. The sellout to Iranian terrorists was well received by majority of the American public.

Fear of further loss of lives also persuaded the U.S. government to give in to terrorists when a car bomb smashed into a U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in October 1983 killing 231 American servicemen.

The troops had been sent to Lebanon to prevent it from becoming a battleground between Palestinian militants, who were backed by Arab countries, and the Israeli army. The United States maintained its military presence in spite of repeated threats by Palestinian terrorists to bomb them out of Lebanon.

In April 1983, terrorists rammed a truck loaded with explosives at the U.S. embassy in Beirut, resulting in the death of 63 people, including 17 Americans. The action did not faze the U.S. government. It said it would not bow down to the terrorists' demands to pull out its troops from that country.

Six months later, after the worst casualty record of American soldiers on a single day, a distinction that still stands up to the present, Reagan immediately ordered an immediate withdrawal of its troops from Lebanon. The policy of standing up to terrorism was promptly forgotten.

The move drew strong support from the American public. Never mind if the action meant breaking an international commitment, what mattered most to the U.S. leadership at that time was keeping its troops away from the deadly attacks by Palestinian terrorists.

In a pace that compares to what American comedian Jay Leno described as the speed with which the Philippines withdraw its humanitarian mission in Iraq, then-president Bill Clinton pulled back the remaining U.S. troops in Somalia. It didn't matter that the move represented a capitulation to terrorists and stained American prestige in the international community. What counted most to the U.S. government was the safety of its soldiers.

Now, who has the habit of giving in to the demands of terrorists?