A nation held to ransom

In the Philippines, the kidnapping game brings handsome dividends, as the Abu Sayyaf has learnt. Amit Baruah on the latest crisis.

IT IS like a repeat performance. As the Philippines grapples with the latest kidnapping by the Abu Sayyaf (bearer of the sword) group, the vision of a similar operation by the rebels last year, comes to mind. This May 27, 20 hostages, including three Americans, were snatched by the Abu Sayyaf from a tourist resort off the western island of Palawan, the first major kidnapping by the group since obtaining millions of dollars in ransom for Western tourists released by them last year.

The Philippine President, Ms. Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, has been talking tough. She has asked the kidnappers to release their hostages or die in a ``hail of bullets''. One June 1, the Philippine armed forces, after remaining clueless for several days about the whereabouts of the hostages, encountered the Abu Sayyaf (officially called ``bandits'' in the Philippines) in Tuburan town of Basilan island, 480 km from Palawan.

It is evident that the Abu Sayyaf planned their operation well and managed to evade the security forces with ease while on their way to Basilan from Palawan. In Lamitan town, Basilan, after a day-long encounter, the Abu Sayyaf slipped away under the very nose of the security forces, with the Government coming under considerable criticism for allowing the escape.

During the battle between the Abu Sayyaf and the Government forces in Lamitan, nine of the original 20 hostages managed to escape and two were ``executed'' by the bandits. Four more hostages were taken in Lamitan, taking the total number in the custody of the Abu Sayyaf to 13, a military spokesman was quoted as saying.

A spokesman for the rebel group was quoted as saying that Mr. Martin Burnham, one of the American hostages, was injured during the clash with the security forces. There has been no independent confirmation of the report. When a ``deadline'' was set for ``executing'' one of the American hostages, the Government came out with a conciliatory response, a departure from its previous positions.

The military spokesman, Brigadier-General Edilberto Adan, called on Abu Sabaya, the Abu Sayyaf pointman speaking to local radio stations to put forward their demands, to immediately contact Mr. William Castillo, the Government's designated spokesman. ``I know that you believe in Allah and you know that innocent victims are not to be hurt... It's a violation of your religion, of Islam. That's why we are asking you to continue treating them well,'' the military spokesman said in a live broadcast over local radio.

In the meantime, the Arroyo Government has rejected a demand from the Abu Sayyaf to appoint the former Malaysian Senator, Mr. Sairin Karno, as the designated negotiator. The President's spokesman, Mr. Rigoberto Tiglao, said in response to the rebel demand: ``We cannot authorise any other negotiator or intermediary to talk to the Abu Sayyaf, especially foreign citizens''.

On Wednesday, Abu Sabaya said the military must stop chasing his men through the jungles if it wanted to discuss the negotiated release of the hostages. ``If they (the Government) want to seriously talk to us, they should show it by removing the military... while the soldiers are here there will be no talking,'' he said on radio.

Last year, too, Mr. Joseph Estrada had done some tough talking, but when it came to the crunch, the then President authorised Libyan intermediaries to negotiate the release of Western hostages, following which millions of dollars were paid out in ransom money.

Clearly, hostage-taking is a ticklish issue for any Government, especially when foreigners (and Americans to boot) are involved. However, in the Philippines, the kidnapping game brings handsome dividends, as the Abu Sayyaf has learnt. Last year, after the ransom payments were made, the Abu Sayyaf bought arms and speedboats for a new operation, which they launched some nine months after the last kidnapping ended.

It is evident that successive Governments in the Philippines have found it difficult to deal with Muslim separatism in the southern part of the island nation, of which the Abu Sayyaf is the most militant splinter. It has also been argued that the Abu Sayyaf has no political objectives any more.

Writing in The Philippine Daily Inquirer, Mr. Michael L. Tan, a columnist, said: ``Will the Government be able to wipe out the Abu Sayyaf? Not in the near future. The likes of the Abu Sayyaf survive because they do have support from the people. That should not seem strange when you think about Philippine society. The Abu Sayyaf is a mirror to the Philippines, still a fragile and fragmented conglomeration of chiefdoms, ruled by numerous warlords who spend much of their time building alliances...''

``The Abu Sayyaf, unfortunately, represents the unreconstructed warrior, still clinging on to a tribal ethos of warfare, of endless rounds of offensives and counter-offensives,'' the writer added.

Groups like the Abu Sayyaf, formed in 1991 after splitting from the Moro National Liberation Front, have continued to thrive despite operations launched against them from time to time. Last year, in the wake of the kidnappings of Western tourists, they grabbed the attention of the world. Now, they will remain in focus until the fate of the three Americans is known.

The Philippines state appears unequipped to deal with challenges from groups like the Abu Sayyaf - well-trained, well-armed and very mobile. Till such time as the state gets its act together, such groups will continue to thrive.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Shadow over Macedonia
Next     : Thunder in the mountains