Peace making 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.

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 reveal “newer” complex faces/images of conflict and peace making.

There is the urgent need to re-draw the map and re-configure the conflict and understanding of it. We need to factor in to the equation the nuances and contours brought about by “new” ways of engagement.

Prior to the 9/11 tragedies, Iraq and Iraq Wars, Madrid and London Bombings, conflict “mapping”, with few exceptions, told us that 98% of the conflicts worldwide are either intra-states and the places of engagements were in the fringes or remote from the big city centers.

All these have changed overnight with 9/11, the Madrid and the London bombings. New elements appear in our radar screen overnight. Wars and conflicts are no longer being fought in remote places and never heard places. They are present and even more terrifying images in our mega cities.

We have to re-configure our understanding of “terror” and the subsequent “War against Terrorism”. Suddenly, governments worldwide are being compelled to ‘come up” with “Anti Terrorism Act regardless whether it jeopardizes basic human rights of citizens and civil and political rights as well.

It is disconcerting, to say the least, that we wake up one morning and hear from the news that we are not safe anymore in our cities. We thought that wars and conflicts are “tolerable” as long as they happen in some remote places like Africa, Central Asia, Latin America and South and Southeast Asia or in Mindanao.

But to hear that we are “targets” – in our mass transport systems and in our malls, has given us not only discomfort and fear, but a real sense of “paranoia” to see the “enemy” in the faces of immigrants in our midst, especially people identified with Islam, South Asia and the Middle East.

The bottom line is the fact that no where and no one feels safe any more. Anyone and anywhere becomes a target. War and conflicts have come “to roost” right at our “doorsteps” and mega cities. The horror of the Makati Bombing, Madrid Bombing and the London Bombing magnifies 9/11 to the tenth power.

We no longer speak of a “fight towards victory”, but self-expenditure that transforms persons into deadly human bombs. People who willingly embrace death for the cause they believe in. The goal seems to inflict “mass civilian casualties” and maximum media coverage.

So far we speak of traditional explosives or improvised explosive devices (IED). It will be a real nightmare, if the so-called “human bombers” would have access to “weapons of mass destruction” - biological weapons or even ‘plastic’.

One of the hard realities experienced on the ground is the knowledge that policies kill. Good policies enhance peace and bad policies fuel war and conflict. Another truism is the fact that policies, no matter how recent or old, will always come back to roost. Globalization has not changed this; it has simply multiplied the roosting a thousand times over through science and technology, including the use of modern weaponry.

Similar thing can be said of the behavior and “bias” of the dominant powers in the world today. In many ways, these feelings of being “victims” and “aggrieved” become a force that pushes them to “seek redress” and when redress seems not possible, they struggle “to get even”.

Conflict builds over time, so also peace building. Unfortunately, there are no quick fixes to conflict. Similarly, there are no quick fixes to what people now refer to as “terrorism”. You may have all the so-called pre-emptive strikes; and you can bomb all proposed “targets”, but when the clouds of debris clear, your so-called “terrorists” still lurk around, biding their time for new opportunities to “get even”.

In the month of February, the government has opened three peace tables: GPH-MNLF Table, GPH-MILF Table and the GPH-NDFP Table. In any peace undertaking, cynics and spoilers are never wanting. But there are also people who never despair in the peace process.

Thus it is good to be reminded that Peace 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 people of goodwill, as well.

The lines are drawn between holding or postponing the elections on the 2nd Monday of August 2011 in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) as provided for by Law (RA 9054). The law provides a term of three years for all ARMM elected officials (Governor, Vice Governor and three Assemblymen for each congressional district) within the ARMM with no provision for extension or hold-over beyond the 30th of September 2011.

There is always a strong temptation for the national government to tamper with the ARMM Elections for whatever reason vested groups may concoct. And on the basis of track record, the conduct of the ARMM Elections has always depended on the whims and caprices of the powers that be in the National Capital Region, a.k.a., the Republic of the Philippines.

Since the establishment of the ARMM in 1989, postponement of elections has been the rule rather than the exception. Believe it or not, the ARMM elections have been postponed eight times!

In many ways, the governance of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao is a ‘sui generis’ in the Philippines. ARMM has its own basic charter, the Organic Law (RA 6734 and later RA 9054). The Organic Act is no ordinary legislation by Congress. It is not only allowed by the Constitution but also the basic charter was designed with the participation of stakeholders through the Regional Consultative Commission.

Moreover, the final Organic Act was ratified by the majority of the constituents in a plebiscite called for the purpose. RA 9054 that amended RA 6734 was subjected to a plebiscite. This is the reason that a mere Congressional statute sans the consent of the majority of the constituents in a plebiscite called for the purpose CANNOT supplant or amend the Organic Act.

Congress enacted laws to set the date of the plebiscite for people to approve the Organic Act (RA 6734) or amendments to the Organic Act (RA 9054). Congress also fixed the date for the first elections in the ARMM. Under the rule and custom, the law setting the first elections expired after the candidates had been duly elected and qualified. That law would exist only in statutory book but cannot be further amended since the purpose of the said law had been perfected. The operational law is the Organic Act, which in our present case is RA 9054.

The presentation by the proponents of postponing the ARMM elections is FALSE by creating an illusion that Congress can continue to set, ad infinitum, the ARMM Elections with or without the consent of the governed. Congress cannot amend RA 9333 that set the first ARMM Elections under the RA 9054. RA 9333 exists only in the archives or in statute book but it EXPIRED as soon as the candidates of the first ARMM Officials under RA 9054 had been elected and duly qualified.

That Congress continues to pretend to have power to set and fix ARMM Elections actually amending the provisions and the spirit of the Organic Act without the consent of the governed is simply a mockery of autonomy and the right of self-determination.

I believe that President Noynoy with the avowed slogan of ‘matuwid na daan’ will, finally, put a stop to this continued mockery and affront to the letter and spirit of autonomy and the principle of self-determination already allowed by the 1987 Constitution and the Organic Act.

There is really no option but to follow the law and conduct the ARMM elections on the 2nd Monday of August 2011.

The arguments being used for the postponement have no basis in facts.

The first argument is to leave the ARMM configuration open to whatever may ensue from the peace process with both the MILF and the MNLF. The peace process in the Southern Philippines would NOT come to an ‘end’ in three years or before the elections of 2013. Even if agreement is signed with the MILF before the 2013 Elections, the said Peace Agreement still has to be legislated by Congress. Both the negotiation and the consequent legislation are long and tedious work. It is a wrong and definitely bad policy to hold the ARMM structures and leadership hostage to the vagaries of peace negotiation and legislation by Congress.

The second argument is to allow the incumbents to introduce reforms in the ARMM during the two-year ‘extension’. It is good to state at the outset that REFORMING the ARMM, definitely, is a gargantuan task. The two-year extension even directly guided by the Prophet Muhammad or Jesus himself would hardly make any difference. Reform should be seen as a continuing task and challenge both for the regional leadership and national leadership that exercises general supervision over the areas of autonomy.

The third argument is the flawed elections in the ARMM. If this is the case, the appropriate action is not canceling elections but introducing reforms in the conduct of elections in the ARMM beginning with the book of registered voters.

It is known to all and sundry that the ARMM officials are elected into Office through and by the anointment of Malacañang. All candidates to ARMM positions move heaven and earth to be anointed but when they are not anointed, they cry ‘foul’ and accuse Malacañang of interference in the autonomy and self-determination of the people of the ARMM.

But ARMM elections (for all its failings) provide the mythical fig leaf. By doing away the ARMM elections and directly appointing an OIC, Malacañang removes the proverbial fig leaf! It removes the little cover that gives semblance to people’s choice of their officials in an autonomous structures based on the long struggle for self-determination. The government’s nakedness is, then, exposed for all to behold!

The good choice for Malacañang is either to endorse/anoint candidates as usual or for the first time to allow the provinces and the clans to sort their feudal politics to elect their leadership in the ARMM.

The best option for government if it chooses NOT to endorse anyone is ensure, with full support of the COMELEC, CSO, PNP and AFP, that the playing field is, more or less, level for the clan politics to choose the leaders for the next three years.

COMELEC need not buy new machines. The ARMM elections can go MANUAL since people will elect only FIVE candidates – Governor, Vice Governor and three Members of the RLA in each congressional district. In fact it can be reduced to FOUR Candidates only since the vote for Governor is also a vote for the Vice Governor (They are voted as a team.). The real cheating begins in the book of voters. It should order a NEW REGISTRATION for the entire ARMM.

In conclusion, I appeal both to the President and the members of Congress to respect the law and be guided by the very spirit of autonomy and self-determination in RA 9054.

There is a scarcity of debates and consensus on the issues of sovereignty, territory and autonomy or self-determination.

Yet, the debates and passion before, during and post MOA AD imbroglio caught the nation unprepared. I never thought that Mindanao or a portion of the island would be a subject of passionate debates and uproar nationwide.

More than twenty years ago, I attended and addressed a convention of social and political scientists organized by the Malaysian Association Social Scientists. The convention was grappling with the issue of the politics of separatism and the MNLF in the Southern Philippines. Experts from various countries of SEA tried to analyze the root causes of politics of separatism beyond the usual culprits that a more traditional social scientists and policy makers point. The triple culprits are poverty, politics of exclusion and injustice.

This analysis has led not a few scholars to think and believe that the economic causes explain the recurrence and even the sustainability of internal conflict. But tragically, a peacemaking solely based on these analyses has still to produce a success story of peacemaking and nation building.

Then and now but more specifically in our present discourse, we need to point out that nation state and all its claims of people, sovereignty, territory and government are young constructs that continue to evolve. They were not “natural” in the sense that they were there from the very beginning;

In a more radical way of speaking but perhaps closer to truth, the Filipino ‘nationhood’ that our Gat Andres Bonifacio conceived in 1896 did not go beyond the “Katagalogan” or by beyond the provinces that the eight rays of the sun in our flag symbolized.

In a similar vein, the so-called “Republica ng Pilipinas” that Emilio Aguinaldo proclaimed in 1898 covered more or less the peoples and communities that were subjects of Spain. I do not believe even for the sake of argument that Gen. Aguinaldo claimed sovereign power over the Moros and or the so-called non Christians Tribes including the peoples of the Cordillera.

Our claim then and now to nationhood is akin to yet another slogan that is now written in the plate numbers of motor vehicles - “matatag na Republika”. this reminds of me of the late DepEd Sec. Ric Gloria’s rhetoric for quality education. He ordered the words “quality education” painted on the roof tops of all public schools. And there remained our quality education.

When we speak of reimagining nation states, we are actually raising the fundamental issue whether the 19th century construct of nation state is still valid today. It asks the question whether we are “rightly” reading and interpreting the ethnic and sectarian conflicts out there – in the neighborhood, in short, “on the ground” by offering the 19th century construct that is expiring or gasping for its last breath.

A newer and more interesting challenge to the 19th century nation state construct comes from the trajectory more associated with the late Harvard Prof. Samuel Huntington. He made attempts to locate the path to social cohesion or the mode of coming together that will give people confidence and trust in one another. He cited these in pairs, the one is blood and the other is belief or, correspondingly, family and faith.

In terms of these two elements we live, develop our horizon, elaborate our values and have confidence in one another and in our life as a community or nation. Consequently, the possibilities of coming together gravitate around these two elements of family relationships or blood and of faith or religion.

In this light, Prof. Huntington sees seven major civilizations that are characterized by certain consanguinity and a basic belief system. His theory indicates that through these civilizations, peoples will share understanding, concerns, a belief system and worldview. And these are the natural ways for people to come together. This is not something that is often misunderstood as a return to the “pre-rational” and the superstitious stage. Instead it points to a post rationalist period in which a new set of human sensibilities and an urgent and promising new agenda is emerging.

In a similar vein, Prof. Francis Fukuyama notes that for prosperity in business there is need for trust between people. He acknowledges sets of values cited by Weber as keys to capitalism: diligence, saving, rationality, innovation, risk-taking, etc… But Fukuyama opines that these will not work in the economic order unless they are undergirded by a sense of honesty, reliability, cooperation and responsibility. If those are lacking and there is no trust, then initiative cannot go forward nor will it achieve its reward. This foundational set of virtues comes from the cultures, which in turn are grounded in faith.

Our departure from Huntington is the fact that we hold that those values, cultures and religions that generate civilizations need not be conflictual or ‘clash’. But this will require a new understanding of ethnicity, religion and civilization. It is a reading that interprets various ethnicity and civilizations albeit their diversities as able to contribute one to another. There are three basic steps that will help us walk toward this new understanding.

First is the recognition that our life, future and destiny are bound up with each other. No, we cannot espouse a politics of separatism, culture of exclusivism, nor act as sole proprietors of the land.

Second is to be open to each other, that is, learning not only from each other but more so to live and work as partners in shaping our common lives and destiny in peace, justice and care of the earth. Yes, we must not be afraid or hesitate to accept, to trust and to work with each other as partners.

Third is our commitment and involvement in the promotion and guarantee of the rights and dignity of every person regardless of faith, gender, culture and color within our society/community.

Alas, openness is NOT a universal element in our human relations. It is a culture of the heart that has to be slowly, patiently and sometimes painfully built through time.

In this regard, the on-going peace talks put us in a critical juncture in defining and shaping our relationship in the context of a new enterprise beyond the narrow limits of the nation state construct. In many ways, there is a sense of urgency to dare break new ground both in our discourses and actions. Our national and communal traditions need to rise above the heritage of mutual suspicion and fears and address squarely the conflictual relationships that continue to soil the earth and divide our faith and ethnic communities.

With Egypt occupying the headlines, I am reminded of what the martyred President of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, said in his historic address to the Knesset in Jerusalem on November 7, 1977.

“… Yet, there remains another wall. This wall continues and constitutes a psychological barrier between us, a barrier of suspicion, a barrier of rejection, a barrier of fear, of deception, a barrier of hallucination without any action, deeds or decision. A barrier of distorted and eroded interpretation of every event and statement. It is this official statement as constituting 70% of the whole process. Today, through my visit to you, I ask why don’t we stretch out our hands with faith and sincerity so that together we might destroy this barrier?”

No doubt, our new solidarity has to give birth to a new relationship that heals, expands and empowers. Politics and economics are inadequate to shape that meaningful relationship.