While I commend President Noynoy Aquino for standing up for the country in protesting the travel advisories issued by seven nations against the Philippines, I must also agree with the advice of Senators Loren Legarda and Tito Sotto to take seriously the warnings against terror threats.
These seven countries, six of which aired serious concerns about the threat of terrorist attacks in the Philippines, all have extensive intelligence networks and wouldn’t be issuing the advisories if there were no imminent threat to their nationals who are planning on trips to the country.
The six countries that issued travel advisories were the United States, Canada, France, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand. Japan was the seventh country to issue a travel advisory to its citizens, but it warned against criminality such as kidnappings and robbery, not against terrorists.
It is understandable for Aquino to protest the advisories, knowing fully well that such warnings could scare both tourists and investors at a time when the country is attracting these two groups in an effort to revive the ailing Philippine economy.
But Aquino must also understand that it is the duty of these seven countries to protect its people from harm. Instead of merely protesting, the government should show that it is equally concerned with such reports and that it is mobilizing its security agencies to verify the reports.
As has been the case with other incidents in the past few months, the Aquino administration has shown indecisiveness in its actions. On Wednesday, Malacanang announced that the Philippine National Police and the military have been placed on highest alert following information that terrorists are planning attacks in Mindanao and possibly also in Metro Manila.
The next day, Malacanang said the terror reports upon which the advisories were based were “raw” and unconfirmed and that the government is thus protesting the issuance of the advisories.
How could have the country’s intelligence agencies confirmed the reports in just one day? The six countries are not saying there was definitely a terror threat, but that based on their intelligence reports, there is a strong possibility that attacks could be staged in Mindanao and possibly Metro Manila. Based on such reports, it was incumbent upon these nations to warn their nationals not to travel to the Philippines in the meantime that such threats appear imminent. As we always say, better safe than sorry.
In fact, the Philippine military has confirmed that it has received reports that terrorists, including Jemaah Islamiyah member Umar Patek, who was believed responsible for the 2002 Bali, Indonesia bombing that killed more than 200 people, have entered the country. Scores of foreign tourists were killed in that Bali attack.
Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said they have yet to confirm if Patek is indeed in the country but that intelligence operatives are now gathering information about the report. On Friday, ABS-CBN News showed video footage of Patek carrying a rifle. The video, which was reportedly taken in Tawi-Tawi, was provided by think tank Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism Research.
The Philippines certainly cannot afford another incident similar to the botched hostage taking at the Luneta in August, which caused an international embarrassment to the young Aquino Administration and drove away tourists, especially those coming from Hongkong and China.
What if the Aquino administration continues protesting the travel advisories and, heaven forbid, a terror attack occurred and killed or injured foreign tourists in the country?
If the botched hostage crisis severely damaged the reputation of the fledgling Aquino administration, what more if a Bali-type attack occurred amid the stubborn protests of the travel advisories? The seven countries that issued the advisories would say they issued warnings and instead of heeding them, the Philippine government chose to ignore them.
Can you imagine the harm it would permanently inflict on the country and the government? The Aquino government would be severely weakened and its credibility would be severely and permanently damaged, and the country would become a pariah in the international community.
The very sectors that Aquino wishes to protect from the adverse effects of the travel advisories – tourism and business — would suffer the most.
Travel advisories are standard procedures for foreign governments receiving intelligence information on threats that could harm their nationals. Although the Philippines, for some reason, rarely issues travel advisories, it has no reason to be hysterical about those warnings.
The country stands to suffer much, much more severely if the advisories were right, after all, and a terror attack kills or injures people, especially tourists, than just letting go of the travel advisories, which have been issued against the Philippines many times before with nary significant consequences.
Aquino’s speech in the APEC Summit where he criticized the six foreign governments for issuing the travel warnings based on alleged “raw” information may be another misplaced bravado, the same way he viciously attacked the appointment of Supreme Court Justice Renato Corona only to realize that it was futile, and arrogantly lambasted the Supreme Court for its adverse ruling on midnight appointees. And now he faces an even more hostile tribunal.
Maybe the Aquino administration should start approaching similar incidents more calmly and more diplomatically. The administration has gone way past the first 100 days and should now be more prepared to govern.