Jumping to conclusions
There is a certain familiarity about the spat between some officials in the Philippines after the calamitous midnight suicide attack on a Metro Manila resort last week. Gunfire and arson caused by the attacker left at least 37 people dead. Most died from smoke inhalation in the fire set by the attacker at the Resorts World Manila complex not far from Ninoy Aquino International Airport.
Logically, the human grief caused by such an attack should be matched only by two serious security concerns. The first is how a man can easily stroll into a government-promoted casino-hotel with a loaded M4 assault rifle and extra ammunition. An equally important concern is the identity of the attacker. Knowing who were his accomplices or enablers is vital to public safety, especially since Islamic State’s propaganda apparatus was so quick off the mark to claim the attacker was one of its lone-wolf warriors.
Instead, there was a terse and occasionally nasty debate lasting all weekend over whether the gunman was a terrorist. President Rodrigo Duterte and police said no, IS and some media said yes. Mr Duterte said he was simply “crazy”.
Almost everything that is known about the assailant and his murderous attack comes from eyewitnesses and CCTV. The man spoke Tagalog and “acted normal” in the taxi.
Inside the casino with his military rifle, he was icily calm. He donned a black ski mask, pulled out the ammunition from his backpack before exchanging gunfire with security guards and was even slightly wounded at one point.
He stole casino chips worth US$2 million, set fires that eventually killed three dozen innocent people. Then he walked upstairs, went into an adjoining hotel and, according to media reports, shot himself dead. Labelling the gunman before even knowing his identity, let alone motivation, flies in the face of every proper security directive. It is, of course, familiar because the same type of conclusion-leaping is regrettably common in Thailand.
Three bombs have exploded and another disarmed in the past two months in Bangkok and police, working on no clues, have quickly decided it is not terrorism. The same thing happened with the foreign bombing of the Erawan shrine, which killed 20 people, mostly visitors, on Aug 17, 2015.
The exact label to slap on an attack or a series of attacks is beside the point until all facts are known. As of yesterday, Philippine authorities truly had no idea if last week’s casino attack was terrorism, the act of a madman or something else.
Similarly, Bangkok authorities and government security experts cannot rule out terrorism as the motivation of the four pipe-bomb incidents.
Making a premature decision about the attackers’ motivations hinders proper investigation.
In Manila, President Duterte has already decided the murderous casino attack had nothing to do with terrorism or Islamic State. This will prevent investigators from following leads that even include a name given by IS of the alleged attacker.
Importantly, such pre-conclusions also make a mockery of the many bilateral, multilateral, Asean and Apec pledges to cooperate against terrorist threats. The Philippines has proved a poor performer, especially when put up against other terrorist-threatened countries.
Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore have taken firm action to minimise terrorist risks. The Philippines, after 20 years, has active jihadist groups able to occupy large cities.
It is time to revive and then make good on the pledges to cooperate, and clearly separate the terrorist threats from crime.
Philippine authorities truly had no idea if last week’s casino attack was terrorism, the act of a madman or something else.