These past weeks, I have been addressing various groups from political scientists to peace advocates on the conflict or to say the least the tension between ethnic identities. The reaction from the academe has been very encouraging, because there is the perceived openness to seriously look at the root causes of recent ethnic assertiveness leading to the famous or infamous “Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain’ or MOA AD for short.

There are various factors that lead individuals to rebellion according to their ethnic or sectarian identification. Some of these factors are related to power struggles between elites, external actors, state interventions, and socio-economic change. There are numerous case studies that evidence that many and different factors influence identity so as to generate identity tensions.

In extreme cases individuals become ‘anomic’ and then seek security in absolutist and exclusivist identities, directed against a demonized 'other'. The rhetoric following the legal debacle of the MOA AD is an example of the usual emotional response to demonize the other in the tension between ethnic identities. (In many ways, the many responses to our blog, especially the heated ones are good examples of the emotional responses to demonize the ‘other’ identity different from the mainstream.)

Identities play two roles. First, ‘conflicts of interests’ will tend to become intense and potentially violent, when the community generates situations where individuals with multiple fluid identities feel they have to chose one identity against another. Second, ‘identity conflicts’ that fuel antagonistic identity-communities with each side having developed conflicting identities and ideologies, when a society itself becomes a cause of conflicts of (ideologically perceived) interests, so that conflict is exacerbated or renewed.

Thus we have 'ethnic conflicts' are 'identity conflicts' because they are confrontations between groups competing not just for material advantage, but also for the defense of the moral and religious values that define their identity. Further, they involve tensions for individuals who feel forced to choose one identity against another. Lastly, they involve conflicts within each ethnic identity community as to the 'true' meaning of the identity label (militants and moderates within the ethnic us, accusing each other of betraying the true us)

The ending of such conflicts needs both measures that reassure each side that their material interests can be protected, and also measures that begin to facilitate the de-polarization and re-intertwining of identities.

The core prescription is for government/global policies (and social changes) which contribute to the building of new communities (cultural or political, territorial or non-territorial) which can transcend or transform antagonistic ethnic communities. The various possibilities for conflict resolution are focusing on the building of a civic national identity based on existing state boundaries, the possibility of boundary change (secession etc), the development of larger transnational polities, and/ or virtual communities.

The implication is that peace processes which focus on the institutionalization of fair power-sharing /resource sharing between ethnic communities, are flawed to the extent that they thereby institutionalize the conflicting and ideologically entrenched identities.

Ethnic identification should be seen as the results of effort by underprivileged groups to improve their lot through collective mobilization or conversely the efforts of super ordinate groups to preserve the privileges by exploiting subjected groups.

The challenge in cases of and multiple identities is peaceful coexistence. The outcome would depend largely on the intensity, potency, content and causal role of ethnic/sectarian/national identities within a country or a given place. One starting point is for the individuals to develop multiple identifications/loyalties to the various interactive communities that they inhabit. "Interactive communities" are networks of social interaction which extend beyond face to face communities, and which are the arenas within which individuals function in pursuit of their material, power, status, moral, ideological or other goals.

These interactive communities might be at locality, regional, language group, religious group, state, or other levels. These identities are fluid and overlap, to the extent that the groups within which people interact are similarly fluid and are integrated with each other.

It is the overlapping or intertwining of various identity communities, and the fact that individuals subscribe to various identity communities, which promotes social cohesion and inhibits ethnic confrontation.

Long before the historic Vatican document, Nostra Aetate (the document on the relation of the Church to non Christian religions), the Oblates of Mary Immaculate or the OMIs in Sulu and Cotabato Provinces have always understood the importance of Muslim and Christian collaboration in the carrying out of their mission. There are difficulties, frustrations and pains, yet, they are transcended as they continue to learn how to live as neighbors. With few exceptions, the Oblates have established a friendly and warm relation with their Muslim neighbors in the south.

In the Philippines, the OMIs have two traditions of Muslim-Christian collaboration personified by two Oblate bishops who met their tragic deaths in February 1997.

The first is the tradition of Bishop Antonino Nepomuceno, OMI or Bishop Tony as he was popularly known. In the early '70s, when the Moro rebellion was at its heights, Muslim individuals and communities were constantly harassed and repressed. The military wantonly violated their rights. Arbitrary arrests, searches and military operations or the infamous ‘sona’ both in urban areas as well as in the remote areas fueled the animosities between the Moro people and the Philippine government during the period of martial rule. It was during this crisis that Bishop Tony stood as a living witness to what the Sacred Council beautifully articulated in words, which speak of concern and sincere effort to achieve understanding between Muslims and Christians and to work together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice, and moral values.

To accomplish this Muslim-Christian collaboration, he initiated the first Catholic, Protestant and Muslim Leaders Association. The association was there to protect civilians’ civil rights against the constant assaults of the fascist army of Mr. Marcos. In times of calamities, Bishop Tony with his Muslim and Protestant friends was in the forefront to give relief, assistance and moral support as well. He was a man who in times of war was able to forge Muslim-Christian solidarity that witnessed to the common tradition of trust, friendship and hospitality amid the legacies of suspicion, anger and hatred. The Social Action Center that he headed in all those years became the powerful symbol of Muslim and Christian solidarity for justice, freedom and brotherhood. He was, indeed, a pioneer in a prophetic ministry always in solidarity with Muslims and other Christian churches as well. He lived to the full his Episcopal motto: “To serve and not to be served.”

The second tradition is that of Bishop Benjamin de Jesus, OMI. Bishop Ben was a gentle, yet a very jovial person. As priest and later as Bishop, he was a friend to all, but most especially to the poor and the vulnerable sectors of Philippine society. His passionate commitment to the poor urged him to venture in a humble and non-threatening friendship with the Muslims in the Vicariate of Sulu. He wanted to be the humble and compassionate servant of the peoples of Sulu. It was his contagious and compassionate smile, his willingness to walk the extra mile and his gentle and humble presence that endeared him most to the Muslims.

He was, indeed, a gentle friend to all … yet he was felled by an assassin’s bullets in front of Jolo Cathedral. Yes, it was a violent end for a man of God. His Episcopal motto: “To Love is to Serve” beautifully described the life and the ministry of the man.

These two traditions in Muslim-Christian collaboration point to the heart of the OMIs dialogue with Muslims. They are rooted in “being” with the people, especially the poor and the vulnerable sectors of society. It is a “rootedness” that is shaped and fashioned by a shared living, sympathy and solidarity. This becomes the wellspring of their active participation in all human endeavors, economic, political and cultural, always in favor of the poor, the oppressed and the marginalized. Oftentimes, this kind of witnessing is clearer and more eloquent than any oral proclamation of the Good News.

In both cases (Bishop Tony and Bishop Ben), there is that desire to carry out the joyful and humble work of proclaiming God’s unconditional love and his all inclusive kingdom that recognizes and respects the dignity and spiritual treasures of our Muslim neighbors.

In the Southern Philippines, the Muslim-Christian collaboration is not something abstract. It is a human activity that involves total life experience. It takes place in the individual as well as communal lives as they live out their faith and conviction according to their living traditions. No doubt, the partnership and collaboration depend upon mutual trust and understanding. It demands respect for the identity as well as the integrity of the other. It rests on the conviction that God who is all merciful and compassionate desires to draw all peoples and the whole creation into a relationship of love and peace.

This kind of partnership should enhance a new culture that enables and empowers all to draw from each other’s traditions and common resources to help face today’s threats to global survival and work together toward peace with justice and the integrity of creation. They should spare no effort to live and work together towards reconciling conflicts, eradicating bigotry and prejudices, and empowering grassroots level communities to act upon their own choices in self-development towards a more just and participatory society.

There are no simple formula to enhance and build collaboration and partnership. Every situation demands a serious study and reflection of the many and varied factors at play. Some of these are historical, social or doctrinal. But whatever the factors and their magnitude, it is every one’s duty to see a better community where peoples of differing faiths and traditions live in love, justice and peace. All true believers have the obligation to emphasize that which unites peoples and communities and make a determined effort to set aside that which would divide them. In fact, believers can only do this if they have full understanding of what the other believes, and are committed to the principle of respect and recognition of the beliefs and feelings of every community and person.