|
In April 2004, the Philipines hosted the Counter Terrorism
Conference attended by some 500 foreign delegates. Peace Adviser
Jess Dureza described the peace plan of Mrs. Arroyo as a parallel to
the government’s counter-terrorism program.
He discussed the government’s
“comprehensive” National Peace Plan as part of the Arroyo
10-point legacy program, stating that the plan included
“completion of comprehensive peace agreements with rebel groups
resulting in the permanent cessation of armed hostilities by 2010,
completion of implementation of all final peace agreements signed
since 1986, mainstreaming the rebel groups through an enhanced
amnesty, reintegration, and reconciliation program, rehabilitation,
development, and healing of conflict-affected areas, and
strengthening the peace constituency and citizens’ participation
in the peace process on the ground.”
So what is new? This is what’s new: the
situation is much, much worse.
The 1986 GRP-MNLF Peace Agreement is, at best,
poorly implemented (the Moro National Liberation Front says that it
has been violated). The Organization of the Islamic Conference has
been mediating the process to review the implementation of the
agreement so that corrective measures can be taken. For those who
are interested in what really happened to the peace accord, read our
book published last December: “Broken Peace: Assessment of the
1996 GRP-MNLF Final Peace Agreement.” (Contact PCID at 531.3522).
Armed conflicts with MNLF troops have plagued
Sulu. Massacres of civilians early this year in Sulu have been
dismissed by the Armed Forces of the Philippines as mere collateral
damage in spite of the findings of the Commission of Human Rights
that there was no apparent reason for the military operation.
The peace talk with the MILF has been stalled
since last year, after the government backed off from its previous
commitment on ancestral domain. The International Monitoring Team
(Malaysia, Brunei, Libya and others) had threatened to pull out if
the peace process is not resumed. This will be tragic, since it is
the IMT (not the government) that has been responsible for the
drastic reduction of armed clashes in the Central Mindanao region.
As for the peace process with the Communist
Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army, that is probably as
problematic as the Middle East Peace Plan. The NPA has increased
operations in Mindanao and other poverty-stricken regions.
In addition, since the unveiling of the
much-vaunted 10-point “legacy” agenda, there has been more
violence: the Magdalo mutiny, the Hyatt 10, more political
instability, increased criminality, more poverty. More bright young
people are leaving the country, unable to find jobs at home. More
human rights violations. Weaker rule of law and growing
militarization. And, not to forget, more corruption unveiled.
So what is this peace plan all about? It calls
for the simultaneous use of “soft power” and “hard power.”
Akbayan Rep. Risa Hontiveros nailed it on the head when she said,
“Whether they admit it or not, the dialogue with the MILF has
become an indirect casualty of the on-going war It is simply
impossible and ironic for one hand to work for the signing of the
peace agreement while the other hand is busy directing a war in
territories where peace is supposedly being negotiated.”
The MILF issued a statement on March 11, after
its consultations with members and asked, “Is the government
serious in the peace talks?” Good question.
In September 2004, Senate Minority Leader
Aquilino Pimentel Jr. (PDP-Laban) urged Mrs. Arroyo to include the
adoption of a federal system of government in her peace plan for
Mindanao. Pimentel said, “The core of the Muslim struggle from
time immemorial is the creation of a territory where they can freely
exercise their religion and culture without fear of repression from
the dominant Christian community or being assimilated by it,”
adding that a political settlement with Muslim rebel groups can be
achieved by the creation of the BangsaMoro Federal State. Pimentel,
in 2004, even suggested that the US government broker the peace
talks.
Now that is something new. A shift to federalism
would require charter change. Certainly the proposal should be
investigated and discussed seriously as the present system is
systemically flawed. It is easy to be manipulated by a President
with superpowers and a strong stomach, who see no wrong in
corrupting all institutions of government in order to stay in power.
The question is, can we trust Mrs. Arroyo and
her political operatives not to use constitutional change for other
purposes?
Unfortunately, “trust” and Arroyo are two
words that Filipinos can’t seem to use in one sentence these days.
mlatimes@gmail.com
|
