October 13, 2005 · Posted in: In the News
Balik-Terrorism: The return of the Abu Sayyaf
URGING Congress to hastily pass an anti-terrorism law, the Arroyo government could capitalize on the recently released paper by the Strategic Studies Institute warning about the resurgence of the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) as a terrorist organization.
Written by Dr. Zachary Abuza, a senior fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and associate political science professor at Simmons College in Boston, the monograph provides an in-depth analysis of the ASG and sheds light on the triangular relationship between them, the Moro Islamic Liberation front (MILF) and the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI).
Abuza contends that the ASG, which has degenerated into a bandit group after the death of its founder Abdurrajak Janjalani in 1998, has shifted back to terrorism and cut back on its kidnapping activities. Its systematic campaign of terror, Abuza says, begun in October 2002 when it detonated a bomb that killed a U.S. Special Forces officer. He also cites the SuperFerry bombing in February 2004 reported to have killed 194 people and the triple bombings staged on Valentine’s Day of 2005 across three cities.
ASG’s return to its roots, Abuza, says, is the result of a confluence of internal and external factors. Internally, there was a change in leadership within the organization folowing the capture and deaths of the leaders most responsible for the kidnappings, Abu Sabaya and Ghalib Andang (Kumander Robot). This has allowed Khadaffy Janjalani, younger brother of Abdurrajak, to consolidate his leadership and bring the ASG back to its ideological moorings. Since then, it has been trying to recruit hardline members of the MILF, who are sure to reject an autonomous agreement with the government being worked out in the ongoing peace process.
Reeling from a series of arrests in 2002, the JI, Abuza says, decided to forge closer ties with the Abu Sayyaf and invited the latter to train with them inside MILF camps in Mindanao. The MILF publicly denies the relationship. But Abuza says considerable evidence suggests that the MILF continues to coddle JI and ASG members.
Abuza says the Abu Sayyaf remains a concern because of its willingness to engage in indiscriminate violence against civilian targets and its heightened technical capacity to foment violence. Another cause of concern is Abu Sayyaf’s use of Balik Islam (Return to Islam) converts, who have figured in every major or attempted terror attack in 2004. The network of converts he says, has already extended beyond Mindanao, reaching Luzon and Visayas to greatly broaden the battlefield.
Abuza however insists that despite the Abu Sayyaf’s resurgence, the primary security threat against the Philippine government remains the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed wing, the New People’s Army. Despite the MILF’s ties to ASG and JI, he also counsels the United States to continue its support of the peace process and to try weaning the MILF away from its relationship with terrorist organizations.
8 Responses to Balik-Terrorism: The return of the Abu Sayyaf
indio_lawless
October 13th, 2005 at 5:32 pm
Well, we have to wait and see THEN if Glue-ria will use SSI’s study to “convence” her minions to fast track the anti-terror bill into becoming a law.
But the correct political question should have been ” Did they ?”
Did we hear Ermita saying Gonzales been so busy these days? As to what?
Your guess is good as mine
Rizalist
October 13th, 2005 at 8:10 pm
Funny about that SuperFerry bombing in February, 2004, coming only weeks before the infamous Madrid train bombings of 3/11. It was only earlier this year that the administration even admitted that it WAS a terrorist bombing that hit us last year. They made it out to have been caused by an accidental fire. NOW they want people to get excited about it. What was it that happened in Feb. 2004? Oh yeah, the election campaign period started and SOMEONE had no time to be fighting terrorists…Now however, there are terrorists everywhere!
manuelbuencamino
October 13th, 2005 at 9:57 pm
I think our approach to terrorism is like curing the
symptom instead of the disease.
What we need to do first of all is to get at the root causes of the
sort of terror we associate with muslims.
Muslims didn’t simply get out of bed one morning and decide they
hated the world. Something must have happened during the
night to make them wake up on the wrong side of bed. Let’s
look at that before we start kicking the shit out of them for
getting up on the wrong side of the bed.
On the local level, let’s address the “moro” problem. It was
originally a political problem involving Manila’s sovereignty over
the sultanates. From Spain to America to today, it was about
getting the universal acceptance of Manila’s suzereignty over
moro lands. How can we do it without repeating the same
mistakes that the Spanish, the Americans and previous
administrations made? Let’s identify those mistakes so we can
diagnose the problem correctly. One thing we know for sure
is that overwhelming brute force has and never will work.
Centuries of warfare can bear witness to this truth.
On the global level, let’s look at how the western policy based on
SUVs (oil) and bagels (Jews) connect with islamic
fundamentalism and why the local muslim insurgency has joined
the global war between muslims and the west. Why is this so-called
war on terror deteriorating into a christians vs. muslims war?
Only after we have identified root causes, studied various
solutions can we start talking about passing laws that will
bring about peace and order.
Our present approach, is purely a product of western thinking.
We can’t even define terrorism properly and as a result we passed an
unconstitutional anti-terrorism bill.
Sassy Lawyer pointed out our present anti-terrorism bill is
unconstitutional because it contains a bill of attainder. “What
is a bill of attainder?” she asked. ” It is a law that punishes a
person for a status or association rather than for the commission of any criminal act.”
Where do we find this bill of attainder in the anti-terrorism bill?
Sassy says, “Section 8 of the anti-terrorism bill is what
characterizes it as a bill of attainder. It is about proscription
of organizations.” And she asks, “What is
proscription and what is so objectionable about it?” And
her answer is why the anti-terrorism bill should terrify us all.
She said, “Proscription means being “branded” or “labeled”.
Proscripted organizations will be published and, after publication, any person who joins a proscribed organization violates the anti-terrorism law and can be imprisoned from 6 to 12 years.
You may ask, so what? If the organization is engaged in
terrorism anyway, then anyone who knowingly joins would,
in fact, be engaging in terrorism as well.
But see, we have to ask what the factual basis for proscription is. An organization may be proscribed simply because some international organization said so. In short, the burden on the government of proving that an organization is, in fact, engaged in “acts of terrorism” is removed. All that the government has to do is to agree with the labeling of the UN or other international organization and
that’s that.”
So until we address root causes we will be wasting
time, money, civil rights and innocent lives.
Chabeli
October 13th, 2005 at 11:16 pm
The problems of terrorism today is actually an ideology problem. It would be difficult to change an ideology; a way of thinking–these are the voices that “others” never gave an opportunity to be heard. Sadly, this is the way these terrorists feel they will be heard. Their feeling of hatred must be addressed through sincere dialogue so that we can better appreciate their pain. War is not the answer. It will only make matters worse. Anger, after all, is pain. What caused their pain?
Rizalist
October 13th, 2005 at 11:41 pm
I prefer to think of terrorism more like the festering avian flu pandemic. While the geneticists are hurrying up looking for a cure or at least a preventative vaccine, we cannot ignore the fact that millions could die if the cure is not found. In this case, it is likely that cure will never be found, as we’ve never cured even the common cold.
But as to the condition of human societies and the relations between nations, there is every hope of finding a lasting cure to the poverty and humiliation that are the roots of terrorism.
But just as with the Avian flu, we cannot afford to wait for an actual cure before putting up thermovision sensors at airports (as with SARS), culling sick flocks, educating the farmers and the public, and taking all other measures to contain and restrict the spread of the disease.
It is unfortunate that some may take this analogy as insulting to Muslims, but I would submit that it is Muslims that the terrorist virii are targetting the most.
Perhaps that is the way to think of terrorism: as a virus that infects the brain. What do you guys think?
In fact just like any other type of violent crime, one cannot give up criminal interdiction by pointing to the imperfections of human society as the roots of criminal wrong doing.
There is after all such a thing as personal accountability. Isn’t that what we all agree PGMA is avoiding?
ka emong
October 14th, 2005 at 8:12 am
ANG TOTOONG TERORISTA AY NASA MALAKANYANG.
manuelbuencamino
October 14th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
Rizalist,
The Revised Penal Code contains all the medicines you need to deal with the symptoms of the disease.
The anti-terrorism bill is being sold as a vaccine but it was prescribed even before a diagnosis of the disease has been made.
So let’s make do with the Revised Penal Code until we find a vaccine that won’t kill us.
Rizalist
October 14th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
Dear Mr. Buencamino,
You are absolutely right about the fact that every component crime mentioned in the propsed law is already punishable elsewhere in the Revised Penal Code. I guess you are saying that an Anti-Terrorism Law is NOT NEEDED, that it is superfluous given the rest of our Laws.
Fair enough, but why have a dozens of countries adopted such laws? They don’t all have have tyrants or voteriggers looking for a way to suppress dissent.
Besides the anti-terror law by itself is useless unless the Filipino people adopt it as part of a greater effort, an honest to God participation in the War On Terror.
I think it is willing participation in that War on Terror, or not, that determines whether one will be for an Anti-terror Law, or not.
At the moment the President is mortally wounded, paralyzed by the very effort to survive against the swarm of outraged, and cheated citizens. In her condition she simply cannot enlist the people into such a War, therefore, she cannot hope to get them to support and Anti-terror law that could be used on them.
But does this mean we shouldn’t have an Anti-Terror Law? As I said it depends on whether you want to go to War on JI, AQ and the CPP/NPA or not.