NY Times editorial

She had just been elected President of the Republic. Elected into office, not shoed in. This was a fresh six-year mandate. She'd always worked for the Presidency, if the biographies about her are to be believed. Even from a very young age, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo knew she was destined to step into her father's shoes. Then, the kidnapping of Angelo Dela Cruz happened.

In her ten-point agenda, she vowed to uplift the conditions of the OFW, Ang Bagong Bayani. Prior to this, she had also committed to Bush' Coalition of the Willing. Who would have thought that the two would eventually come to a head.

A new group of Iraqi terrorists have captured six new hostages, all citizens of Third World countries as poor as the Philippines, or poorer. The NY Times' editorial harshly criticizing GMA's decision to pull out the small contingent from Iraq heaps the blame for this new development on the Philippines' surrender to terrorist demands. At the same time, it states:

We are not arguing that allies show blind loyalty to the Bush administration. If anything, President Arroyo's surrender shows the perils of assembling a coalition of weak allies eager to please Washington but lacking much conviction in the American cause.

I find it surprisingly naive of the NY Times' realization, more perhaps an open admission, that there is a (not-so) hidden agenda behind the Philippines' commitment to the Coalition of the Willing, as well as to all other American global pursuits. Ultimately, the editorial paints the choice between national interests and international relations in simple black-and-white. It shows a complete ignorance of a people's culture, the typical arrogance of white (alleged) supremacy.

The editorial does not ask for blind allegiance. Then what does it ask of its government's allies? Isn't it pure naivete to believe in altruisms in international relations such as those involved in this war? Of course, allies will expect rewards in aligning themselves with the "American cause." What would, say, Australia, expect from this exercise, the advancement of the American economy? I think not.

In the game of power, you are surrounded by people who have absolutely no reason to help you unless it is in their interest to do so. Robert Greene, Power: The 48 Laws

Is the question one of the sacrifice of one Filipino life to save the rest of the world? Are we really so naive to think that the crisis has become now so much worse because of the decision of one nation? Aren't we missing the bigger issue here, that the war in Iraq was a stupid, egotistical, selfish war, not to mention unjustified, waged by the most powerful nation on earth?

The editorial also stated that with her decision to pull out, GMA wasn't helping the Iraqi people any. Again, if the US didn't love playing GI Joe so much, the Iraqi people wouldn't be in this situation in the first place.

1. Do I support the decision to pull out?
2. If not, do I agree with the NY Times editorial?

First Question. I'm no admirer of that hick, Dubya. I have no love for war, especially his and his dad's. I've always maintained that Saddam Hussein was an internal problem for Iraq, much like Marcos was for the Philippines in his time. Like I always say, you deserve what you get in this life. If you don't have the guts to fight your own fight, live with the evil. I was not encouraged by GMA's decision to join the Coalition of the Willing but I must admit, I never foresaw this kind of danger to Filipinos. Which only goes to show that terrorism on this scale -- or on any scale, for that matter -- is new to us as a people.

I suppose we've been so used to being insignificant in terms of global importance that to have a countryman held hostage shocks us. On the world stage, the Filipino has become a valuable player -- as a potential victim. The Filipino psyche is so romantic that it totally loses sight of the fact that he voluntarily accepts overseas work in countries like Iraq and Saudi Arabia despite the knowledge of the risks involved. And when the worst happens, all melodrama breaks loose. The Filipino doesn't lack in intelligence; he's just too maudlin and selfish to be of much use to his country.

Even then, no Filipino should die for The Hick and his stupid war. The Philippines should no longer get involved in any more of The Hick's terrorism against his country's perceived enemies. Lately, he's been eyeing Iran as another hoarder of WMDs. This guy is stark raving mad. Anyone who's in league with him is either just as mad or desperate, and the Philippines, unfortunately, is that: desperate. Kapit sa patalim.

I support the pull out only if it goes beyond that. If GMA makes the decision to pull out completely from the Coalition of the Willing (Idiots), then, yes! That, I support. Otherwise, I maintain my stand that the only way to deal with terrorists is to ignore them and not give in to their demands. You got yourself in this mess, you get yourself out of it. I believe in finishing what you start. GMA got the country into this mess, she has to see us all through to the end, and suffer the consequences of her actions. The only statesmanly thing to do. That is what it means to live in this world today.

Second question. Then do I agree with the NY Times? Yes and no. I agree that the decision to pull out is, under the attendant circumstances, a sign of a weak leadership and political immaturity, but the editorial's premises and arrogance rub me the wrong way. I suppose the paper can be forgiven for upholding the "American cause," whatever that means, as it is, after all, an American publication, but its shortsightedness appalls me. Shades of 9/11; very vague, very nebulous, very dangerous.

That other nationals are placed in danger because of the withdrawal of the Philippines from Iraq is rather limited in vision. Again, the same argument applies: foreign nationals in Iraq are there voluntarily, with knowledge of the risks they stand to meet. It's unfair to put the responsibility for the plight of others on one nation's actions. In situations such as what we have in Iraq at present, things can hardly be viewed in simple terms. To say that the new six hostages were kidnapped just because the Philippines pulled out from Iraq is preposterous. Foreign nationals are ALL in equal danger of being taken hostage by Iraqi militants, and will always be open to such a danger, whether or not the Philippines withdraws its troops.

Sadly, I have to agree that copycats will arise when a hostage situation succeeds, especially when it involves money. But this all goes back to the issue of looking at the bigger picture. it's no use putting the blame on the Philippines when this whole mess began with the US.

July 19, 2004
A Filipino Retreat

Terrorists in Iraq scored a victory when President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo of the Philippines decided to accelerate the withdrawal of her nation's token contingent of troops to spare the life of a Filipino hostage. A group calling itself the Islamic Army had threatened to behead Angelo dela Cruz, a truck driver, unless Manila withdrew. To the dismay of her allies, and possibly even of the kidnappers, President Arroyo is hastening to comply.

It's hard to imagine the anguishing helplessness felt by a leader — or someone's relatives — watching such horrifying deadlines come and pass. The United States, South Korea and possibly Bulgaria have lost hostages to gruesome beheadings in Iraq.

But President Arroyo deluded herself into thinking she could actually do something about the situation, and has now allowed the kidnappers to alter Filipino policy. One can understand the desire to save a life, but Manila's retreat will only place all other foreign nationals in Iraq in greater peril.

President Arroyo's decision may play well at home in the short term because Filipino involvement in Iraq was never all that popular to begin with, but it could have disastrous longer-term consequences for her government. The Philippines, after all, faces a number of terrorist groups on its own territory, and millions of its citizens work overseas. It is never wise for any government to be blackmailed by terrorists into abandoning its policies, but it seems especially ill advised for Manila to be doing so.

We are not arguing that allies show blind loyalty to the Bush administration. If anything, President Arroyo's surrender shows the perils of assembling a coalition of weak allies eager to please Washington but lacking much conviction in the American cause. President Arroyo is certainly not helping the Iraqi people with her decision. Spain and some Latin American countries had every right to exercise their sovereign judgment that it was best to leave Iraq. But their decisions, unlike President Arroyo's, were not driven by terrorist demands.

Back to top