US aims its sights on Philippines

Amid continuing anti-terrorist military action in Afghanistan, the deployment of American armed forces in the Philippines has passed relatively unremarked. But it is not without its controversial - and hazardous - aspects for both the United States and its former south-east Asian colony.

The president of the Philippines, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, faced a high-level split in her security council and noisy opposition from nationalists this week over the proposal to bring in about 650 US soldiers, including 160 special forces, to help track down members of the ruthless terrorist group, Abu Sayyaf, in the southern Philippines.

Abu Sayyaf, which comprises some hardline Islamists as well as many common criminals and bandits, has been linked by the US to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network - although there is little firm evidence of a current connection.

Abu Sayyaf, which first came to notice in the 1970s, is ostensibly engaged in a separatist struggle to create an Islamic state on behalf of the Philippines' Muslim minority. But much of its activity in recent years has concentrated on acquiring money and weapons through murder, intimidation and extortion.

Washington is also motivated by its desire to free two Kansas missionaries, Martin and Gracia Burnham, kidnapped by Abu Sayyaf along with a Filipino nurse, Deborah Yap, and held on remote Basilan island 560 miles south of Manila.

About a decade ago, after a period of increasing bilateral friction, the Philippines finally succeeded in ending arrangements under which the US maintained a large naval base at Subic Bay. This was a legacy of the American colonial period that began after the Spanish-American war in 1899 and formally ended in 1946.

Another major US base, Clark air field, was voluntarily closed. The post-September 11 proposal for a return of American troops has thus reawakened unhappy memories of a former subservience.

Ms Arroyo eventually overcame opposition to the deployment this week by stipulating that the US forces would not be allowed to become actively involved in fighting. Officially their role will be to advise the Philippines army in its hunt for Abu Sayyaf members and help train its units.

"We would like to state categorically that the president's policy decision is that the Americans are not going to be engaged in combat, period," said Roilo Golez, the Philippines national security adviser.

But, although it was also pointed out that the deployment was provided for under the pre-existing Visiting Forces Agreement with the US, concerns remain about where this decision may ultimately lead.

One such issue is the length of the deployment - officially, it will last for six months. But, if the Abu Sayyaf problem remains unresolved at the end of that period (and it has persisted, after all, for three decades), it may presumably be extended.

There are other worries. While barred from combat, the US troops will be heavily armed and entitled to defend themselves if attacked. In the obscure and dangerous conditions they are likely to face on impenetrable Basilan, quite how self-defence is defined in practice may become an open question with hidden answers.

Abu Sayyaf is said to be able to call on around 1,000 fighters, men notorious for their mistreatment (and occasional beheading) of western hostages. If the American special forces get into trouble, the Pentagon's instinct will be to send in heavy reinforcements - possibly with or without Manila's prior agreement.

The deployment also poses potentially complex political and foreign policy problems for Ms Arroyo. It will inevitably be portrayed by many in the region and in the Arab world as yet another assault on the Muslim faithful carried out under the auspices of George Bush's loosely defined "war against terrorism".

While the Philippines is a predominantly Catholic country, Indonesia is the world's most populous Muslim nation. There will be concern in Jakarta, for example, that by letting the Americans in, Ms Arroyo has created an unfortunate precedent adversely affecting other countries in the region.

A bloody US-backed anti-terrorist drive in the southern Philippines could in turn rally undeserved support for Abu Sayyaf and stir up other supposedly al-Qaida-affiliated groups such as Jemmah Islamiah, already the subject of an international manhunt stretching from Singapore to Malaysia and the Philippines.

Then there is the fundamental issue of national sovereignty. As some in central Asia are currently in the process of discovering, agreeing to let the American military establish a foothold in their countries can be much easier than persuading it to go home.

Worries about where the US deployment may lead are shared at its point of origin, too. In a recent editorial, the New York Times criticised what it termed "vague and disturbing" aspects of the Bush administration's plans.

"The Pentagon has a long and ignoble history of announcing that it is dispatching American forces abroad as 'advisers' when they are really meant to be combatants," the paper warned. "We hope the Bush team will not play that game." Here was a clear reference to the Vietnam war, American involvement in which also began with the apparently innocuous deployment of advisers.

The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, is adamant that all is above board and tickety-boo. Speaking during his recent Asian tour, Powell insisted the US simply wanted "to help the Philippines government defeat this kind of terrorism ... their problem threatens Philippine citizens but also American citizens." US military trainers had been sent merely "to see if we can help them do a better job dealing with their problem," he said.

The soft-talking, un-hawkish Powell is probably sincere. His difficulty in this instance, as in policy debates over other possible "war against terrorism" targets such as Iraq or Somalia, is that he will not have the final say.

That dubious honour falls to the hardmen, ideologues, and poll-watching political fixers who encircle the US president, George Bush, like noxious flies in the jungles of Asia. Their self-interest does not necessarily coincide with that of the Philippines people.