absolutely alex’s adventures & times

It’s hard not to feel sorry for the plight of Ingrid Betancourt, the Franco-Colombian politician who has been held hostage by the Colombian rebel group Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, for over six years.

The once-thriving woman was kidnapped by FARC after she tried to negotiate with them and is believed to be seriously ill. Recently freed hostages had expressed fears that Betancourt’s condition could deteriorate if she did not receive medical attention soon.

Betancourt is reportedly chained up now because she tried escaping from the rebels, who besides fighting the Colombian government, are notorious for smuggling cocaine and kidnapping Colombian politicians, civilians and even a few Americans.

Understandably, the French government, together with the Spanish and Swiss authorities, has sent a humanitarian/ medical mission to the Colombian jungles where the FARC are based in the hopes of getting Betancourt out to receive medical treatment.

But their approach could have inadvertently worsened things for Betancourt.

Their action, which had not come with prior negotiations or agreements with FARC rebels, might have ticked the rebels off and jeopardized Betancourt’s chance for freedom.

“The French medical mission is not acceptable and much less so when it is not the result of a prior agreement,” FARC’s ruling secretariat said in a statement.

“We do not act under blackmail or under pressure from media campaigns.”

The operation cannot for faulted for its good intention. But it was badly handled and seemed ill thought out. The European governments should have known that FARC comprises merciless terrorists and appealing to their sympathy for Betancourt would not be effective. Could it be that their priority was not just to save a possibly dying woman, but more so to play to the three countries’ home audience, to prove that action has been taken, however flawed it was?

France especially, had made it a priority to have Betancourt freed and might have hoped that its medical mission would move FARC. But by flying there unilaterally, without first having worked something out with either the Colombian government or FARC smacks of rashness to the point of folly.

Experts worry that the latest French initiative could worsen things.

“This rejection contributes to the contamination of the atmosphere,” Alfredo Rangel at Bogota’s Security and Democracy Foundation think tank told Reuters.

The International Committee of the Red Cross would have been an ideal intermediary for the French to use to obtain an agreement, given its track recording of securing hostage release. But the French had not approached it for help at all.

The French seemed not to have learned from an earlier failure. In 2003, it too, had tried to send a mission to free Betancourt but ended up empty-handed and received criticisms from the Colombian and Brazilian governments for its actions instead.

If the French were serious about helping Betancourt, they should forget about grandstanding and wasting taxpayers’ money unnecessarily by flying those fruitless attempts over to Colombia. They should have tried harder to reach out to the rebels or intermediaries behind the scenes to get Betancourt freed. Flying in unannounced will only raise the FARC’s suspicions and harden its resolve. That means poor Betancourt will remain captive longer.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Maybe Singapore won’t feel so bad now about the escape of a suspected terrorist chief from the island nation’s detention center, right under the noses of authorities who pride themselves on sophisticated security systems and well-run, incorruptible security forces.

In late February, the Singapore government was forced to acknowledge the breakout of Mas Selamat bin Kastari, alleged by the government to be the leader of a terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah. He has been accused of plotting to bomb the United States Embassy and several other targets in Singapore. He was also believed to have wanted to hijack a passenger jet and crash it into Singapore’s airport.

He is still at large, despite a massive manhunt and an Interpol alert.

Morocco has just reported a similar embarrassment. Nine Islamist prisoners convicted of terrorist offenses just dug their way out of one of the country’s jails.

“They used a tunnel which came out at the house of the director of the prison,” Moroccan professor Mohamed Darif told the BBC. “They must have had accomplices.”

The escaped prisoners were believed to have left a note protesting their innocence and the conditions of their imprisonment.

Like Singapore, Morocco had made fighting terrorism one of the country’s priorities and presented itself as an ally to Western countries in the war against Islamist extremists.

And just like the Southeast Asian nation, Morocco’s case is also a first.

Sophisticated and developed Singapore would loathe to be lumped with Morocco, but that is the unfortunate reality it would have to deal with from now on.

Perhaps those two nations should exchange notes on how not to lose high profile detainees. And commiserate.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

-Voltaire-

Freedom of expression is one of the principal bases of living in an open, liberal society. We are allowed to say what we think and feel, but not without consequences, of course. Remarks or opinions judged inappropriate by society or the affected party usually have a way of coming round to haunt the utterer. Yet, we agree that in an open society, free speech is a basic right that we enjoy.

Against this backdrop, the online release of an anti-Islam, anti-Koran short film by notorious Dutch legislator Geert Wilders, should not receive the condemnation it has garnered. Wilders has a right to express what he feels, despite the efforts of some Dutch politicians to ban his film. What could be criticized, however, is the content of Wilders’ film.

Titled “Fitna,” Arabic for civil strife, the film painted Islam as violent, a religion that encouraged terrorism and provided gruesome images such as beheading and shootings in the name Islam.

While it is no secret that Islam has its extremist and violent wing, the vast majority of its practitioners are peaceful and law-abiding people. Wilders was unfair and one-dimensional in his film’s depiction of Islam. But he remained insistent.

“It is not a provocation, it is tough reality — a reality that some Muslims might not find comfortable,” Wilders — the leader of a far-right, anti-immigration Dutch political party, Party for Freedom — told the media.

His latest action comes in defiance of death threats that had been previously issued against him. Wilders has bodyguards protecting him around-the-clock.

A Dutch filmmaker, Theo Van Gogh, was killed in the streets of Amsterdam by an Islamic extremist in 2004, after he released a film critical of Islam’s treatment of women.

The Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, in reflecting his country’s open and tolerant society, struck a balanced tone in handling Wilders. “The film equates Islam with violence: we reject that interpretation,” he said. “We believe it serves no purpose other than to offend. But feeling offended must never be used as an excuse for aggression and threats.”

The problem is that the radical Islamists would not take such a measured approach. Free speech is not something they would necessarily understand. This is a cultural and civilizational clash that will pit different ideologies and beliefs against each other, with devastating consequences likely. Balkenende is right to worry that Wilders’ film will not only provoke protests in Islamic countries; Dutch interests, be they soldiers, citizens or businesses, might also face backlash or even come to harm.

So it is a tough line to walk — other cultures might not understand or accept it, but we need to protect and guarantee freedom of expression. At the same time, unfortunately, managing the repercussions such as those that could be unleashed by Wilders’ film, is also going to be a tough prospect. But if it is a principle we believe strongly enough in, we must stand by it, just as Voltaire had so aptly stated.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

It is tragic every time senseless killings make the news.

It is even sadder when it involves the long-running blood feud between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

After a lull in suicide attacks by Palestinians on Israel for almost two years, the peace was shattered today by the killing of eight Jewish seminary students in Jerusalem by a gunman believed to be Palestinian or Israeli Arab.

BBC photo

The shooting also left nine others injured, three gravely. The attacker, who was reportedly working alone, was killed on the spot by an Israeli army officer. Apparently, a little-known group calling themselves the Jalil Freedom Battalions – the Martyrs of Imad Mughniyeh and Gaza was behind the killing.

What a horrible waste of young lives this incident is. The worst thing is that it will not end here.

While families of those affected grieve, others are already demanding retaliation on the Palestinians.

The anger among the Israelis is understandable. They have already been going through a nerve-wreaking week, with the recent firing of more powerful rockets by Palestinians extremists from Gaza into Israeli towns. The Israeli army had been busy answering that by launching a raid into Gaza, resulting in over a hundred Palestinian deaths and a dangerous increase in tension.

Today’s massacre will only toughen Israeli resolve to retaliate and crush further attempts. What will follow, to the detriment of all sides, is another cycle of violence, where more deaths and sadness will result.

It is risible that the Hamas government, which is in charge of the Gaza Strip, called the shooting “heroic”.

“This is a normal response to all the Israel occupation, commission and aggression, and they [have] committed massacres inside the Gaza and West Bank – about 128 [people were] killed, 30 of them children and infants, people and elderly and [women]. So I find this is a normal response to all Israel’s occupational crimes, and waging a war against the Palestinians,” Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum told the world unrepentantly.

And while the rest of the world sent condolences to the victims’ families and condemned the violence, Palestinians were out celebrating on the streets at the news of shooting.

When will they ever learn that their problems would not be solved by blowing themselves up or taking others’ lives?

When will they realize that violence only begets more violence and lives lost would be in vain?

With attitudes like this, there seems to be little hope in the continuation of peace talks between Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Just yesterday, after talks with US Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, the two had agreed to restart peace talks that had stalled in the wake of the recent violence. Though they did not say when that might happen, that now seems extremely unlikely to be anytime soon, in the wake of today’s shooting.

“How does a terrorist escape from such a detention facility? How is it even possible?”

That sentiment is echoed not only by a large number of Singaporeans fascinated and anxious about the breakout from the high-security Singapore detention facilities of terrorist suspect Mas Selamat Kestari on Wednesday, these were also the questions discussed by analysts.

Mas Selamat is one of the suspected leaders of Jemaah Islamiya, the Southeast Asian terrorism arm of Al Qaeda, and had been accused of planning to fly a jet into the Singapore airport and also to bomb US facilities in Singapore, such as the US embassy.

While the Singapore authorities had launched a massive manhunt involving its police, military and Nepalese Gurkas to track down and recapture him, other reports have surfaced that the Singaporeans are looking in vain for him on the island — since he has already hightailed it to Indonesia, home to thousands of tiny islands where it would be much easier for a fugitive to hide.

Mas Selamat is believed to have a good knowledge of how to sneak into Indonesia from the years he spent on the run in the country, as a terrorist operative.

Given that almost four days have gone by since his escape, that prospect is not implausible. It would explain why the Singapore government has tied up with the international police network, Interpol, to issue a worldwide alert on Mas Selamat. It might not be admitting it to its worried citizens, but the Singapore government probably already knows that the chances of recapturing Mas Selamat are getting slimmer with each passing unsuccessful day.

But the fallout for Singapore will still remain high.

As a place that prides itself on sophisticated security systems and well-trained personnel in a corruption-free environment, many are wondering if Mas Selamat had acted alone in his daring breakout. Otherwise, how else could a person who walks with a limp have gotten past the high fences, barbed wires and other presumed alerts of the detention center without raising any suspicions or even notice?

Given his high-profile status as a terror suspect, why were there not restraints, such as electronic tags or even old-fashioned handcuffs on him?

Was there not at least one guard watching over him as he was in the bathroom, the point at which he made his run?

Questions on the level of security imposed on him, the effectiveness of systems in place and the complacency of the security forces, will need good answers from the authorities.

But more damagingly, the image of Singapore as a place where top-notch security and air-tight measures to ensure breakouts remain unheard of is now seriously affected. It gives rise to the question of whether other inmates would be attempting to take a gamble to run, given the relative ease with which a detainee as highly-marked as Mas Selamat got away.

And more disturbingly — would his escape increase the likelihood of terrorist attempts against the island nation, seeing how this incident has reflected on the weaknesses of its systems and personnel?

As for those thinking that Mas Selamat is a crazed Islamist idealist motivated by his desire to get out and complete a mission, think again.

Apparently, he’s looking out for himself now and the jail break was driven by the desire to save his own skin rather than getting out and fulfilling the suicide missions against Singaporean and American infidels, the Singapore newspaper The Straits Times reported.

Mas Selamat was said to have spilled the beans on his fellow jihardists in a bid to get a lighter sentence while in Indonesia. He was believed to have given away details of the location of another wanted Islamist in his organization, Hambali, the head honcho of the Jemaah Islamiyah, currently under US custody at Guantanamo Bay.

With a reputation for being both ambitious and ruthless, Mas Selamat is likely to work hard to ensure that incarceration would be his last.

While the Singapore authorities are already trying to put a positive spin on the incident by saying that its security forces and reputation would bounce back and grow stronger from it, it might have to live a long time with the knowledge of having dropped the ball badly on this one.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

What an embarrassing breach of security it has been for Singapore to report that a top Islamist terror suspect held in one of the highly-policed state’s jails, had broken out.

Mas Selamat Kastari, who was incarcerated in the island’s Whitley Road Detention Center, reportedly gave his captors the slip while going to the bathroom on his way to receiving a visit from his family.

Mas Selamat was accused of planning to hijack a commercial jet and crashing it into Singapore’s airport facilities and plotting to bomb American buildings on the island nation. He was also believed to have been the chief of the Singapore arm of the Southeast Asian Islamist terrorist group, Jemaah Islamiyah, which has been blamed for being behind several high-profile suicide bombings in Bali and Jakarta, and has links to Al-Qaeda.

Singapore’s deputy prime minister and security chief Wong Kan Seng was forced to make the unprecedented step of apologizing for the breach and called to answer questions by the country’s parliamentarians on how such an incident could have happened.

“This should never have happened,” Wong told parliament. “I am sorry that it had. An independent investigation is under way and we should not speculate on what and how it happened.”

While blaming a security oversight on the incident, he was also questioned on why there was a long time lag of over four hours before the authorities made public the news of Mas Selamat’s escape.

No doubt some heads will roll for this matter.

This incident will undeniably dent Singapore’s hard-earned reputation of being rigorous on security and anti-terrorism measures.

More embarrassingly, Mas Selamat had also escaped when he was under Indonesian custody. His success again, this time at having outwitted the highly-touted Singaporean security systems, would prove more damaging to Singapore’s reputation than the Indonesian episodes.

The Singaporean authorities, though, are trying to put a brave face on the issue, saying that it has launched a massive manhunt and there was no “imminent danger” to the public as the fugitive was unarmed. It is also in cooperation with neighboring authorities Malaysia and Indonesia to ensure that the ring around Mas Selamat would tighten and get him caught quickly.

They are probably hoping fervently that they get their man and this remains an isolated incident, so that Singapore’s highly-prized reputation of having the region’s most effective and sophisticated security systems will not be tarnished.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Start getting worried.

It doesn’t look like we’re going to be leaving Iraq as soon as we want, even if Hillary or any of the other Democrats became the next president.

The New York Times reports that Hill and the other front runners in the Democratic presidential nomination race are starting to hedge, even as they keep up their demand that the Bush administration end the Iraq war, or they would if they captured the presidency.

Hill wants a small force to stay behind to fight terrorism, while John Edwards believes troops should be there to intervene in case civil war breaks out. Barack Obama is thinking along the same lines, advocating a number of troops to be there to provide security for American personnel, fight terrorism and train Iraqis, according to the NYT.

It might be infuriating, but at least they are realistic, and honest.

Reports have estimated that tonnes of equipment were shipped or flown to Iraq over the years, and that takes time to get out, if the withdrawal was to be conducted in an organized fashion. Apparently, even the sunniest prediction is that at least a year would be needed for all the troops to come home.

Whoever becomes the next occupant of the White House will also be forced to deal with the mess and the moral dilemma created by Bush and his cronies — how much involvement to commit, especially if a full-on civil war and slaughter take place. Or worse — what to do if the violence and unrest didn’t stop in Iraq but spread to other countries in the region.

Pity the poor sod who will be left carrying the baby when he or she takes on the top job.

And if that’s not enough of a hint that Iraq isn’t going to be a problem that the US can leave behind quickly or easily, consider this — the new war adviser to the White House actually said that there are considerations for bringing back the draft.

“I think it makes sense to certainly consider it,” Army Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute told National Public Radio on Friday. “And I can tell you, this has always been an option on the table. But ultimately, this is a policy matter between meeting the demands for the nation’s security by one means or another.”

While saying that the volunteer army had served the US well, Gen. Lute stressed the pressure and demands that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have inflicted on the troops. Hence the talk that they are thinking about re-implementing the universal draft.

On the bright side, the policy change might take a while to realize and is most probably unlikely to happen, given Bush’s short remaining time in the White House and the lack of political capital he has to introduce such an unpopular policy.

But if a draft is reinstated, it would be a powerful deterrent for war. No one is going to risk going on some silly adventure if they knew that more people, even their own sons and daughters, could be sent to theaters of war to be hurt or killed. The draft could actually stay politicians’ hands and make them think harder before committing troops, given the backlash they know they would face from an angry electorate.

The revelation that most of the terrorists detained and involved in last week’s UK and Glasgow car bombing plots being doctors put paid to the conventional wisdom that poverty and lack of education are the crucial factors that drive many a desperate young man towards extremism by blowing themselves and others up.

After all, the “biggest” terrorist of them all is Osama bin Laden, and he is no poor boy. The man comes from one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia, billionaires that are also well-connected to the Saudi royal family.

Not that the rest of the other terrorists are billionaires too, but a substantial majority of them are fairly well-educated, coming from middle-class families by and large.

Similarly, the members of the Southeast Asian arm of the al-Qaeda-connected group, Jemaah Islamiah, though halfway around the world, also had well-educated operatives, such as engineers and lecturers.

It is shocking and hard for most of us to understand why people who should theoretically be more able to reason and have more to lose, would willingly put themselves in harm’s way. But economic circumstances is a poor indicator that radicalism would take hold.

Princeton economist Alan Krueger told the Wall Street Journal that his research showed that as a group, terrorists are usually from “wealthier families than the typical person in the same age group in the societies from which they originate”.

He has a good point — most of the September 11 attackers were from relatively wealthy families. Being Saudis, they’re not your typical poor either.

Krueger and his team had also come up with other statistics to back their theory up. They found that research on 148 Palestinian suicide bombers showed that they were not from impoverished families, but were more likely to have graduated from high school than the general Palestinian population. Similar findings cropped up when they researched Hezbollah and Israeli terrorists.

More disturbingly, Mr Krueger and his team discovered that when public opinion polls were held in countries like Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and Turkey, the better-educated ones from there were the ones likelier to reply that suicide attacks against Westerners in Iraq are “justified”. Conversely, Palestinian polls demonstrate no visible difference in the opinion between the educated and uneducated about support for terrorism as a way to reach political objectives.

On the other hand, the theory that terrorists spring from poverty hardly has data to back it up. It is an attractive theory though, that most people can easily wrap their heads around. Witness the Bush administration’s statements about fighting poverty in hot spots around the world to combat terrorism.

The Wall Street Journal points out that the 9/11 Commission itself came to the conclusion that terrorism is not brought on by poverty. Instead, Mr Krueger suggests that the suppression of civil liberties and political rights are more plausible causes. That perhaps makes things more alarming, given how many countries suffer from those factors.