Philippines: ICRC president calls for hostages to remain unharmed
Manila / Geneva (ICRC) – The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is appealing to the Abu Sayyaf Group, which is holding Mary Jean Lacaba, Eugenio Vagni and Andreas Notter in the southern Philippines, to ensure that the three remain unharmed and to let them go immediately.

The appeal is in response to threats made by the abductors that they will kill one of the ICRC employees on 30 March if their demand for a pull back of troops goes unmet.

“I am very concerned by the threats of the kidnappers,” said the ICRC’s president, Jakob Kellenberger. “I am asking for their safe, unconditional and immediate release.”

“The sole purpose of Mary Jean, Eugenio and Andreas’ work is to give help to those in need. It is impossible to understand what the kidnappers could possibly achieve by hurting them. Harming a humanitarian aid worker cannot be justified under any ideology or religious law.”

Since the abduction on 15 January, the ICRC and the Philippine National Red Cross have been working vigorously to resolve this ordeal. On 27 March, Mr Kellenberger spoke with Philippine Executive Secretary, Eduardo Ermita, the country’s second-highest ranking official, and asked him to ensure that the authorities do everything in their power to save the lives of the hostages, while avoiding any action that could put the ICRC staff at risk.

“The ICRC’s priority is that Mary Jean, Eugenio and Andreas remain safe and that they be able to return to their families, who miss them desperately. Their children, parents, siblings, spouses, friends and colleagues will not give up hope of seeing them again soon,” added Mr Kellenberger.

For further information, please contact:
Anastasia Isyuk, ICRC Manila, tel: +639 1890 72125
Anna Nelson, ICRC Geneva, tel: +41 22 730 20 63 or +41 79 217 32 64
Carla Haddad Mardini, ICRC Geneva, tel: +41 22 730 24 05 or +41 79 217 32 26

Your scoop was 5 five weeks late and you probably do not listen to AM radio very much otherwise you would have known the initial demands floated by Iqbal were for $5 million. Each.

We however, have a life yet to live, rich with possibility, and the potential to do good or to do evil.

I assert that your position abets further evil, for both sides, for all sides. For everyone.

A human head is a terrible thing to waste for such an abstract concept as a homeland.

And what do you know of the concept that might be in Al Bader Parad’s head?

And what is it doing in yours?

I am a virus hunter you see. That is what I do as blogger. I hope you will indulge my attempts at a forensic diagnosis of your brain on the subject of terrorism.

Well take a look at this Philippine Commentary post from February 18, 2009 — five whole weeks before this March 25 pro-terrorist screed you have just published.

Kidnap-for-Territory: A New Terrorist Tactic

Well Angela I’m calm now. But I am even more appalled, nay disgusted, at your lack of simply humanity or even womanity.

We must have a good palaver with you right now about this terrorist thingy.

now, just what is so incomprehensible about the following statement that would make anybody think that angela is endorsing ransom? i just don’t get it. where is all that anger and suspicion coming from? i’m not even inclined to defend angela’s right to express her claims. it’s not as if she is calling for an armed revolution. what i do appreciate in this piece is her sociological take on the prospects of a rebel/terrorist group that is staking a new claim that seems to cohere with another rebel group—MILF— whose stakes are far more recognized than the former. yung pagbanggit sa ransom is really, as i read it, and i think i’m right, angela’s way of saying that the government will have a more difficult time now as it cannot drop labels such as “terrorist” just like that kasi nga may mga bagong stakes in the game itong abu– whether they mean that or not does not matter, ang point, they are making use of another strategy. now the government has to come up with new ways of convincing people na “ok lang naman tayong lahat dapat if it weren’t for all these screwy rebel groups. but they just won’t stop. now give us a little more time and we’ll kill them all.” i really don’t know how effective that has been. ang point, the government should come up with a whole new way of categorizing its enemies now that they seem to have found a new way of repackaging themselves. instead of bullying angela, why can’t other people na lang who are obviously so for the status quo help the government by coming up with new suggestions. you are wasting your time betraying your reading and comprehension skills. anyway, here’s what’s delicious about angela’s piece:

“indeed, if it were money the abu sayyaf wants, the crisis would have long been resolved through a pay-up from some pocket or another, matapos lang, kahiyaan na. but it’s not money that the abu want this time. it would seem na nag-evolve na ang abu sayyaf. a la MILF, looking for a homeland, na ang drama nila.

interesting, di ba? who kaya is behind this change-of-politics ng abu sayyaf? what are the implications for the peace talks and the MILF’s campaign for a bangsamoro homeland? will/can the MILF ignore the new abu sayyaf or will/can there be a joining of forces?

gma and her defense-secretary-who-would-be-president teodoro must be praying very hard na magbago sana ang isip at mag-settle na lang for millions of pesos ang abu sayyaf in aid of a dramatic rescue of the three humanitarian workers. for the sakes of the three, i pray so too.”

should the state even support the notion of ransom? it would seem that a state like the philippines, where political unrest, poverty, and lawlessness obtain, has little choice in the matter.

“Most kidnaps are carried out in order to obtain a ransom, and in most cases a ransom is paid, rescues are rare, largely because the authorities in most countries recognize that THE SAFETY OF THE VICTIM IS PARAMOUNT.” http://www.trojansecurities.com/trojan-kidnap-ransom.htm

“Kidnapping for ransom is a diverse and evolving phenomenon, but is most common in countries with high levels of crime and corruption, poorly resourced or trained police personnel, a weak judiciary, and/or a history of political or social instability and conflict. In these countries kidnapping is often more profitable and less likely to lead to conviction than other generally high-yield crimes like bank robbery, and the growth of the phenomenon can be seen “as the logical outcome of [criminals] seeking new avenues to make quick profits from unlawful activities”. It is estimated that as many as 80% of all kidnappings for ransom occur in Latin America, but kidnapping appears to a growing problem in sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Central Asia, the Balkans and the Middle East.

“Motivations and modus operandi vary, but generally speaking there are two main kinds of kidnapping for ransom. These can be roughly categorised as

“Criminal kidnapping, where the main motive is to obtain a ransom from the family or business of victims. This category includes instances where criminals take hostages as a shield to help them escape from the scene of a crime, or use them to obtain money or valuables, or the keys or secret codes needed to access areas where these are stored.

“Political kidnapping, where the foremost objective is to further the political aims of a particular political group or movement. In this case, a ransom is usually demanded to obtain money for the group to fund their activities – tactics used by the Abu Sayyaf group in Pakistan and the Philippines, for example.” http://www.iss.co.za/pubs/CrimeQ/No.14/Pharoah.htm

am i in favor of giving ransom in general? if there is no chance or little chance of a safe rescue by authorities, then yes i would favor negotiations for reasonable/realistic demands toward a safe release of hostages. “the safety of the victim is paramount.”

unfortunately yes it’s like rewarding terrorism. but the other way, fighting abu sayyaf terrorism with state terrorism is a dead end, as our history shows. terrorism can’t be wiped out bush-style but only by addressing the roots of the problem, which is a global/national macho order that perpetuates poverty and inequity.

you say that you want a realistic ransom. should the state even support the notion of ransom? isn’t that abetting the act of hostage taking?

are you in favor of giving ransom in general?

might it be that you’re just defensive (over!) because your own post on the red cross hostages had nothing on the kidnap-for-homeland angle, maybe because you weren’t really reading the news? you thought you knew it all na, after listening to gordon and biazon on strictly politics? how babaw your kaligayahan. you’re as bad as mainstream media.

aren’t you the one who’s willing to let these hostages die, the rule of law must prevail, no matter what? my post, if you really read it, does not condone terrorism. all i pray for is a more realistic ransom for the sake of these three, though they be strangers to me. personal relationship need not even be a consideration here.

in your book i start out a bleeding heart liberal and end up a cold heartless intellectual woman, all because i would not be provoked into responding at your level, pace, and volume. que macho. the least i expect is that you would have the grace not to denigrate me in my own house.

i’d delete your comments but, no, maybe i’ll leave them as a monument to your amazing display of idiocy and utter lack of decency.