Solution to terrorism

Last Monday, US President George W. Bush said he did not think that America could win the war against terrorism. He should have said that America alone cannot win the war against terrorists for it is a battle that involves all nations. In the words of the French philosopher Jean-Francois Revel, "The battle against international state terrorism can only be waged by international cooperation, not merely in policing, but in politics. Simply to state this fact makes obvious how difficult it is. As soon as the democracies face a serious challenge, they react by stressing their disagreements or even paying off mutual scores. Only very seldom do they unite against the danger that threatens them all. The terrorist states are well aware of this, and they use it to double advantage, both harming the democracies and further dividing them."

The classic example is the war in Iraq. First, it had not been sanctioned by the United Nations. Americans believed that Iraq was manufacturing prohibited weapons. After they occupied Iraq, they found no evidence to prove their charges. So from the start the US had the problem that medieval philosophers encountered; that is, draw the line between Jus ad bellum, the justice of war, and Jus in bello, justice in war.

The first real problem in facing the terrorist problem is to define terrorism. The classic adage is "One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter." When a UN committee took up the problem of terrorism, the representative of Mauritania said that the term terrorist cannot be applied to "persons who were denied the most elementary human rights, dignity, freedom and independence, and whose countries objected to foreign occupation." Naming countries in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, he added that "such peoples could not be blamed for committing desperate acts which in themselves were reprehensible; rather the real culprits were those who were responsible for causing such desperation."

The Madagascar representative made an important distinction. He said, "Acts of terrorism inspired by base motives of personal gain were to be condemned. Acts of political terrorism, on the other hand, undertaken to vindicate hallowed rights recognized by the United Nations were praise- worthy. It was, of course, regrettable that certain acts in the latter category affected innocent persons."

We had to face this problem when a terrorist group in Iraq, held Angelo dela Cruz as hostage. They threatened to kill him if the Philippines did not withdraw its humanitarian contingent in their country. They did not demand any ransom. They probably saw our troops as terrorist. We really had no business in Iraq. The coalition of the willing did not have the sanction of the United Nations. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo did well in withdrawing our humanitarian contingent. But we got the ire of the United States and Australia. The Australian Prime Minister even stooped to name-calling by calling us "marsmallows".

Insults are verbal terrorism.