Bush's war policy 'a threat to peace'

Vice-President Teofisto Guing-ona has attacked U.S. President George W. Bush for his pre-emptive war policy against terrorists, saying it could unwittingly endanger world peace.

"The main premise of a strike-first policy is to make the world a safer place, but many (allies) fear it could only generate the opposite and breed animosity worse than that between the Israelites and the Palestinians (in the Middle East) because might does not make right," said Guingona in a breakfast forum at the Foreign Correspondents' Association of the Philippines.

Bush's "pre-emptive first-strike policy may negate the gains and goodwill already generated from friends and foes alike," Guingona said in his first press conference after stepping down as foreign secretary at the end of June.

"Those who are not terrorists, innocent civilians, women and children, living in the area of attack, and even military personnel doing their duty, will become needless and helpless victims (if that kind of war policy is implemented)," noted Guingona.

Guingona referred to Bush's speech at West Point on June 1, when he said the U.S.' "war on terrorism" might require "pre-emptive" military action which was widely interpreted as a sign that the U.S. could strike ahead on any country suspected of keeping terrorists.

It was also interpreted to mean the U.S. could strike at Iraq to prevent it from developing weapons of mass destruction.

Guingona pointed out that if that policy is upheld, the U.S. will no longer be a good example for other countries such as nuclear-power rivals India and Pakistan.

"What example will the U.S. give were she herself to pursue the pre-emptive strike policy? Would this not negate negotiations and inflame the two countries (such as India and Pakistan) into open conflict with nuclear consequences?" Guingona said.

The rivalry of nuclear capable countries such as China and Taiwan, and North and South Korea, has made their respective areas flashpoints in the region. Instead of the pre-emptive first strike policy, Guingona said it would be better for Bush to return to the old policy of containment and deterrence since it was quite successful during the Cold War, at a time when communist-ruled countries were perceived as threats to world peace.

This policy could still be used in the new international campaign against terrorism, suggested Guingona. He did not give more details.

At the same time, Guingona complained that the U.S.'s war policy against terrorists could affect the Philippine government's peace initiative with the Communist Party of the Philippines and several separatist Muslim groups in the southern Philippines. "In the Philippines, where we seek to forge an honourable peace with some rebels, should not the nation ensure that the peace process be not jeopardised (while implementing the U.S.' campaign against terrorists)?"

"Let us fight for a worthy cause with merited means – lest we become accused of being terrorists ourselves who wrongly believe that might makes right," Guingona explained.

Guingona questioned the U.S.' anti-terror campaign. "Who determines who are terrorists, who are fighters for freedom in a new land? Did not the Americans fight the British to gain independence?"

Guingona was ousted from his post because of his criticism of the expanded and large scale U.S.-Philippine wargames in southern Philippines, which was a part of the U.S. anti-terror campaign, and the signing of the proposed controversial Mutual Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA) which will be the basis for the accounting of equipment and gadgets to be used in the war-games.