Peace and development prospects for Southern Philippines

By Jun Mercado, OMI
Friday, February 5. 2010

We are at a crossroads to decide whether to move forward or to ‘freeze’, albeit temporarily, the peace talks with both the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).

The Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the MNLF’s ‘official’ review of the implementation of the 1996 Final Peace Accord has remained uncertain and directionless despite three sessions held in Jeddah, in Turkey, and in Manila.

The end remains as nebulous as when they started the review of the implementation of the Final Peace Accord.

The two remain poles apart and that any possible convergence of views and reading of the realities on the ground is almost an impossible dream.

The disagreements between the GRP and the MNLF remind me of the challenge posed by the then Indonesian Foreign Minister, Hon. Ali Alatas, who said that “the real hard work begins after the signing of the agreement. For a peace agreement, or any other agreement for that matter, does not implement itself.”

The same can be said with the GRP and the MILF Peace Talks.

Since 1997, the talks have seen the changes and vagaries of three administrations with no real progress on the ground.

In reality, any peace agreement assumes concrete reality only on the accretions of activities completed on the ground.

The challenge for many, particularly on the leaders, lies on the solid ‘implementary’ achievements, contributions, cooperation and often inevitable sacrifices by all those who are supposed to make the peace agreement work.

In the Southern Philippines, we all have traveled far through long and at times circuitous path to peace.

The 1976 Tripoli Agreement and the 1996 Final Peace Accord are products of patient and insistent peacekeeping and peacemaking.

This is the issue we need to grapple with as we ask the question how to make peace truly sustainable in our homeland.

No doubt, the past and present paradigms, including the controversial Memorandum of Agreement on the Ancestral Domain (MOA AD), need re-drawing to be able to build a new culture, a new way of seeing, and a new way of relating to each other.

The efforts and attempts at peacebuilding, peacemaking, and peacekeeping seem NOT to lead to an acceptable formula that would engender a culture of peace.

It is the culture of peace that will, ultimately, transform and replace the prevalent culture of war.

Peacebuilding is often a more difficult task.

It concerns itself not only on a task of reconciliation but more so on finding and developing positive alternatives to the root causes of war.

This makes peacebuilding a vast project.

It is linked to: (1) building a New Paradigm or politics of living together; (2) a wholesale re-construction [development] of areas affected by conflict; (3) a new understanding of ‘security’ and safety; and (3) a new culture – a culture of peace.

In the past, our community has resembled an armed camp.

Today, there is a movement to reduce reliance on military power and to take steps towards re-construction and disarmament.

The conversion from military to civilian production and trade can make available the resources for programs of human development needed to provide economic and political security.

For peace to be sustainable, it is linked to development which is endogenous, equitable, and sustainable.

Human security and democracy can be provided by institutions and behaviors which ensure that the conflicts inherent in all human societies do not destroy the integrity and effective functioning of the society.

Within the human security framework, disagreement and conflict are managed through a process of participation, dialogue, mediation, and compromise, and political solutions are sought from which all can benefit.

For the next 5 months, the Arroyo administration faces a formidable challenge to pursue with ‘boldness’ peace and development alternatives or simply leave the existing ‘no peace and no war’ policy in the Southern Philippines.


To pursue peace and development with boldness would require not only a coherent national policy on Southern Philippines but also a shared vision of peace.

Sad to say, that these two have been lacking in our pursuit of peace in the land.

With the National elections in May 2010, the temptation is to simply dribble the ball and leave the peace process to the next administration.

It is tragic to simply ‘dribble the ball.’

Perhaps, what the GRP, the MNLF and the MILF can do is to focus and agree on the possible ‘doables’ to create the good climate and prepare a fertile ground for the peace talks under the new administration.

This may be the wiser option given the conflicting policies and views on Mindanao.

The challenge for the peace stakeholders is to engage the two leading political parties, Liberal Party and the Nacionalista Party.

Noynoy Aquino and Manny Villar need to define their vision of peace and development for the Southern Philippines.

No need to engage the former President Estrada since he believes that the solution in Southern Philippines is to imply go back to the ‘all out war policy’.

God forbid that he wins again the presidency!

http://blogs.gmanews.tv/jun-mercado/archives/66-Peace-and-development-prospects-for-Southern-Philippines.html