Peacemaking and conflict analysis have been with us for quite sometime. From the looks of it, they would remain with us for many more years to come.

In fact, the 9/11 tragedy, the Afghan War, the Iraq War, the so-called ‘War on Terror’ and the never-ending crisis in the Middle East point to “newer” and complex faces/images of conflict analysis and peace making.

The continuing violence and conflict notwithstanding troops and sophisticated armaments simply tell us that there is the urgent need to re-draw the map and re-configure the conflict and peace analysis.

Prior to the 9/11 tragedies, Afghan and Iraq Wars, the conflict “mapping” with few exceptions, told us that 96 percent of the conflicts worldwide were intra-states and the places of engagements were in the fringes or remote areas from the big city centers.

All these have changed overnight with 9/11 and the bombings in Madrid and London.

A new element has appeared in the radar screen overnight.

Wars and conflicts are no longer being fought in remote or obscure places.

They are now present and even with more terrifying faces in our mega cities.

The complications come not only from the identity and nationality of the protagonists in the war but also from the emerging definition of terrorism and the understanding of “War against Terrorism”.

Governments worldwide are being compelled to ‘come up” with their own versions of “Anti Terrorism Acts” regardless of whether the conflicts are based on legitimate grievances.

It is disconcerting, to say the least, that people wake up one morning and heard from news that they are not safe anymore in the cities.

For years, wars and conflicts are “tolerable” as long as they happen in some remote places in Southern Philippines or somewhere in Africa, Central Asia, Latin America and South and Southeast Asia.

The thought that citizens in the cities can be “targets” in an on-going war is something new.

In fact, the most vulnerable are the mass transport systems, malls, and other crowded places.

This possibility gives rise to jitters, discomfort and fear.

In mega cities, a sense of “safety paranoia” is on the rise. They begin to see the “enemy” in the faces of immigrants in their midst, especially people identified with Islam and the Middle East.

“Terror” has come home to roost.

The bottom line is the fact that no place and no one feels safe any more.

Anyone and anywhere can be a target.

War and conflicts have come “to roost” right at the “doorsteps” of the halls of powers and mega cities.

The horror of Madrid bombing and the London bombing, simply, magnify the tragedy of 9/11 to the tenth power.

In this kind of conflict, the so called ‘holy warriors’ no longer speak of a “fight towards victory.”

The idea of ‘holy warriors’ transforms persons into deadly human bombs. People willingly embrace death for the cause they believe in.

The goal of what seems to be ‘senseless’ acts seems to inflict “mass civilian casualties” and a maximum media coverage.

So far, bombing involves the traditional explosives.

But it will be a real nightmare, if the so-called “human bombers” would have access to “weapons of mass destruction” – biological or nuclear weapons.

Policies kill

One of the hard realities experienced on the ground is the knowledge that policies kill.

Good policies enhance peace and bad policies fuel the existing war and conflict.

Another truism is the fact that policies, no matter how recent or old, will always come back to roost.

And globalization has not changed this; it has simply multiplied the roosting a thousand times and with newer science and technology, including the use of modern weaponry.

Rightly or wrongly, any policy and legislation that discriminate cause injustice, often against minorities and the vulnerable sectors.

The same thing can be said of the behavior and “bias” of the dominant powers in the world today. Such behavior gives rise to the feelings of being “victims.”

No quick fixes

Conflict builds over time so does peacebuilding.

Unfortunately, there are no quick fixes to conflict.

Similarly, there are no quick fixes to what people now refer as “terrorism.”

You may have all the so-called pre-emptive strikes; and you can bomb all identified “targets” until kingdom come, but when the clouds of debris clear, your so-called “terrorists” still lurk around and bidding their time for new opportunities to “get even.”

Peacebuilding takes place over time – a very long time! There is a Spanish saying that tells “la ciencia de la paz es la paciencia”.

I believe this saying is addressed equally to policy makers and to all peacemakers and peace advocates, as well.

On the 27th of October 2009, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) signed an Agreement on Civilian Protection.

The agreement reconfirms the parties’ commitment to observe the Human Rights Law and the International Humanitarian Law.

By signing this important agreement, both the GRP and the MILF assume all the obligations under the Convention on Human Rights and the International Humanitarian Law.

This, in a special way, has elevated the peace talks between the GRP and the MILF into a higher plane.

What is Civilian protection, especially in areas of conflict?

By definition, Civilian protection refers to all activities aimed at obtaining full respect for the rights of the individuals and communities in accordance with the letter and spirit of the relevant bodies of law, international humanitarian law, and refugee law.

The objective of civilian protection agreement is to reduce the risk and extent of harm to civilians and non-combatants during the actual conflict or during military operations.

The protection of civilians and non combatants is a foremost duty of government and the liberation front.

Both the Human Rights Law and the International Humanitarian Law impose duties on all the parties to the conflict. They also set limits on the methods and means of warfare, particularly as they impact the vulnerable groups.

Worldwide, there is a growing concern over the impact of internal conflict on the non combatants, especially women and children.

Today, the international community requires combatants, government and rebels alike, to respect the dignity and right to life of non-combatants, the wounded and sick, and the prisoners of war.

The principle of civilian protection is anchored on human rights as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the four Geneva Conventions, the additional Protocol II covering non-international armed conflict, and the Philippine Constitution.

In short, the agreement on civilian protection takes the protection of the civilian population as the cornerstone.

With this agreement the question now centers on the so-called ‘collateral damage’ to non-combatants.

Concretely, the debate revolves around the issue of whether or not a degree of ‘collateral damage’ is acceptable.

In the past, the legitimacy of ‘collateral damage’ was premised on the ‘greater’ good and proportional damage.

The theory was debunked following the lost of the Americans in the Vietnam War.

The slogan, “In order to save the village, we had to destroy it,” was the epitome of the abandoned principle of collateral damage.

In view of the on-going discussion on the terms of reference (TOR) for the combatants on the civilian protection, there are basic questions that need to be answered.

1. Should combatants avoid military encounters in civilian communities?

2. In times of population displacement, do the protagonists provide safe passage to fleeing non-combatants?

3. Do the protagonists allow the non-combatants and the internally displaced unhampered access to relief and rehabilitation assistance?

4. Do the protagonists allow or assist in the return of the displaced to their areas of origin?

Notwithstanding the outcome of the present talks, the Civilian Protection (CP) is a good development and should become more robust as more people participate in the process, particularly of the Local Government Units and Civil Society, including the Private Sector (Business).

The Agreement on Civilian Protection, no doubt, provides challenges to both the protagonists and the stakeholders.

The protagonists and stakeholders must think through and beyond the conflict with a view to a common vision of individual rights and responsibilities.

From peace and development perspective, the more the process is coherent and has integrity, the better it becomes in terms of protecting lives and respecting rights.

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!