Keynote Message of Sec. Deles on The Consolidation for Peace for Mindanao Seminar | January 17, 2012
Keynote Message for The Consolidation for Peace for Mindanao (COP 5)
17 January 2012 - University Sains Malaysia, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia
By Secretary Teresita Quintos Deles, Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process
(Salutations.)
Good morning. Magandang umaga po. Assalam Alaikum.
I truly appreciate this annual forum for enabling us to have a regular platform on which, coming from different perspectives and reflecting diverse communities and interests, we can try to keep the momentum for peace going. More than that, I especially appreciate this year’s focus on the Mindanao peace process, for its intent to address the hard questions and to bring in new faces to add freshness and vigour to the circle of advocates that have been meeting yearly. I appreciate the fact that this, being a regional forum that is enriched by the insights of our fellow peacemakers in other parts of the world, will add greater dimensions and perspectives beyond the national scope and borders of our efforts.
Truly, we will continue to need the help of our international partners and neighbours, and I would like to extend in behalf of the Philippine government our sincerest appreciation for your constant support and accompaniment. I may miss mentioning completely the names of all of the international followers of our peace process, but for this forum let me just make special mention and thanks to JICA and the rest of the convenors and organizers of this conference—University Sains Malaysia, Research and Education for Peace (REPUSM), and the South East Asian Conflict Studies Network (SEACSN). I would also like to keep thanking the Malaysian Government and the Malaysian facilitation secretariat, the members of the International Monitoring Team, , the members of the International Contact Group, and the international organizations that continue to be with us—the Asia Foundation, Conciliation Resources, to name a few. Really, my apologies to other groups whose names I failed to mention.
I can see from the program provided by the organizers that we are primed to roll our sleeves up and get to work on the real, tangible issues that attend the peace tables in Mindanao. These include (as indicated in the program) forms of political systems and governance, constitutional reform, the economics of conflict and peace, and overcoming the hurdles of the peace process. From a view of the program, I perceived that my task today would be to assist in framing the discussions from the vantage point of where I am as the GPH peace process adviser. Given the turning of another year, let me do this by presenting a review of the past year’s highlights and lessons, and the outlook on the coming year.
But before I do this, let me take this opportunity to quickly lay out what we are trying to do in OPAPP.
Let me start with a sharing of the shift in perspective in making and building peace that came with the election of President Benigno Simeon Aquino III or P.Noy. Even while he was still a presidential candidate, President Aquino had given time to focus on coming up with a peace and development agenda for Mindanao. The issue of peace in Mindanao was part of the 16-point agenda – specifically, no. 14 – specified in his Social Contract with the Filipino People, which was published as a full-page ad when he and then-Senator Mar Roxas filed their certificates of candidacy for the May, 2010, elections in November, 2009. On April 22, 2010, he delivered a speech at the Peace and Security Forum held at Mandarin Hotel in Makati, where he laid out his national security policy and articulated his commitment to the search for peace. Let me quote some lines from his speech then – this was in April, 2010, almost one month before elections:
He opined: The next administration will have to pick up the pieces and resume the quest for peace with vigor and clarity of purpose. Our quest must not only focus on ensuring the stability of the state and the security of our nation. Our ultimate goal must be the safety and well-being of our people.
He continued: We must revive the peace process on the basis of a comprehensive understanding of the root causes of the conflict, under clear policies that pave and clear the way ahead, and driven by a genuine desire to attain a just and lasting peace.
He ended his speech with these words: We shall endeavor to restore confidence in a peace process that is transparent and participatory, and renew our faith in our shared vision of a peaceful, secure and prosperous future under one sovereign flag.
Certainly, peace in Mindanao is the primary focus of P.Noy’s agenda, to which he had devoted time as presidential candidate to think about and cause the drafting of several policy papers.
And yet, though it is the Mindanao peace process that is at the center of our concern today, the reality is that the Philippine Government is now attempting to bring about the end of all internal armed conflict in the country. In the Philippines today, we are engaging not just one, not just two, but six peace tables. Only two of the six tables constitute comprehensive negotiations for a political settlement: that of the MILF and of the CPP/NPA/NDF, respectively. The rest of the other tables are engaged in conversations regarding the full implementation of agreements already concluded. These are with the MNLF, which signed a final peace agreement with government in 1996; CPLA in the Cordilleras, and RPM-P/RPA/ABB, splinter groups of the CPP/NPA/NDF, which signed ceasefire agreements in 1986 and 2001, respectively. RPM-P/RPA/ABB thereafter split into two irreconcilable factions. Thus, six tables with five groups.
The imperative is to finish the critical aspects of the processes and to ensure a firm start or finish of the implementation of signed peace agreements, within the window that we now have—that is, within the six-year term of P-Noy, now with just four years, five months and 14 days left to it. We count every month how many days are left. We are determined not to pass on another unfinished business to the next administration. We are daring in our ambition to end all armed conflict in the country within this administration. We need to put a proper and peaceful closure to all peace tracks which have been pursued by government since our first people power uprising in 1986. It is the intention of our President, P.Noy, that all signed peace final agreements are implemented with finality within his term.
We cannot engage in endless contestation over who is at fault for the failure of compliance. As all of you are aware, the unfinished businesses—unfinished for too many years—have resulted in the layering and overlay of issues, permutations of formations (splits, splinters, further splintering), morphing in agenda, and the freezing in time of protocols and procedures that too often have taken precedence over substantive negotiations. Inevitably, this has helped fuel among our people increased levels of frustration, even exhaustion, and the temptation to resort to quick fixes and simplified answers. Hopes and expectations have too often been raised and dashed. For the sake and survival of a meaningful peace process, we just have to put an end to our meanderings. We have to be brave and bold in seeking a final resolution of all internal armed conflict because we have to win the peace for all Filipinos.
There are building blocks, but we have to work to find those on which we can truly build – what do we affirm and what do we fight to revisit and revise? More and more is the inevitability of having to bring the different strands together. By this, I particularly mean the converging of perspectives and actions for Muslim Mindanao from the peace track with MILF, from the current dialogue with the MNLF, and from the efforts to ensure reform in the governance of the ARMM. Further on this point, allow me to quote liberally from GPH Panel Member Miriam Coronel Ferrer:
Past administrations navigated ARMM politics, the peace talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the review of the implementation of the 1996 Final Peace Agreement with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) without a coherent goal or largely through the instinctive use of patronage politics. This lack of cohesion and short-sightedness in government policy have naturally led to inconclusive results, a moving back and forth between some peace and some war, a cumulative degradation of the lives and rights of the people in the region, and an even more dysfunctional regional government. The current administration is trying to bring together different policy strands to become an integrated program of change and transformation for the region.… Ultimately the aspirations for autonomy can only be achieved through a broad, nationally coordinated effort. The convergence in due time of the different policy strands affecting the region would thus be ideal.
Towards this convergence, OPAPP has reached out to different groups laying claim to represent the Bangsamoro or who have invested part of their lives to fighting their causes, or simply because they are citizens and human beings in their own right who deserve to be heard. This is on the firm belief that all stakeholders must be on board, their welfare taken into account, and equal protection and opportunity be made available to all. In this light, we are pleased that the different groupings across the Moro revolutionary fronts have undertaken their own initiatives toward settling their differences born out of the history of their struggle. They may remain divided by personality or organizatonal differences. They may choose to remain organizationally distinct. But, if all agree to embark on a non-violent, collaborative path for change, agree to co-exist and power-share, agree to compete in free and fair election, then we would truly see the end to the decades of armed conflict in Mindanao.
From the beginning, OPAPP has expressly embarked on a conjoined “peace and development” framework, where Track 1 or the peace tables, is complemented by focused interventions that address the causes of the armed conflict and other issues that affect the peace process.
Regrettably, development initiatives, in particular, the PAMANA, which are under the supervision of the OPAPP, have been wrongly accused of trying to supplant the peace negotiations. Such development interventions, it is claimed, smack of ‘counterinsurgency.’ These charges are farthest from the truth. They reflect a lack of appreciation of the urgency of the basic needs of communities who have been placed in harm’s way during the long decades of conflict. The claims seek to delay the giving of relief or succor to those who have been deprived of their due because of bad governance.
Such accusations and the corresponding demand to halt the program appear insensitive to the real needs of the people, whose daily lives have been held hostage by the prolonged conflict. Government, if it has a conscience, has no choice but to deliver the services. It is plainly government’s—this administration’s—responsibility. Economic assistance delayed is another child’s right to education, another hungry family’s right to food, another sick elderly’s right to health care, denied.
Secondly, what those who put malice in government’s bid for economic development in the region fail to realize is that those who will eventually take over governance will be the first to benefit from the improved social and economic climate in the region. The roads, irrigation canals, school buildings and shelter being put in place all make for a stable foundation for upright, autonomous governance. No autonomy will prosper if it is saddled with poor infrastructure, untapped human resources, and unmet human needs. Any autonomous government will have to go past the level of survival. It must be able to generate its own revenues, create more wealth and opportunities, minimize social problems including criminality—which, one may say, is basically some kind of alternative livelihood. Any boost in this direction will go a long way in supporting the new political entity that can result from a peace agreement.
Let me repeat. This framework or approach is not counterinsurgency. It is a comprehensive and dynamic framework—a convergence—that aspires to achieve a just and lasting solution to the armed conflicts in Mindanao. Moreover, government is not trying to do it alone. It will undertake—to a certain extent it has been undertaking—the PAMANA, the ARMM stimulus fund, and all the other socio-economic projects within the purview of the peace process, in tandem with the relevant government agencies, civil society groups, international donors, the private sector and, of course, it is government’s aim to work with its negotiating partners in the different tables. We hope the latter will continue to see the wisdom in working together cooperatively, respectful of each others’ mandates, obligations and needs, in the here and now, within the six-year window of opportunities profferred by the president.
It is after all in the same spirit of laying the groundwork for the future settlement that we at the OPAPP stood pat in defending the P5 million grant to the Bangsamoro Management and Leadership Institute. Then and now, we believe that the BLMI is an important mechanism to train the next generation of leaders of the Bangsamoro and we have full trust that the MILF will be faithful to the purposes of this fund.
In congruence with the convergence perspective is the importance of realizing that what happens in the peace table does not happen in a vacuum. We had seen as 2011 drew to a close how the peace process can be extremely vulnerable to the politics in the country. The peace process is moving during a time of great debate, or even political adversary. There is the issue of bringing GMA to political accountability. Given this context, the peace process will need the vast support of people. It is naïve to think that one can work for peace advocacy without engaging the political arena. The debate that came out after the Al Barka incident was not only and not mainly about the peace process. It was also about politics, including the politics of 2013 and the politics of 2016, and, certainly, the politics of an ex-president that had misused power for 9 years and led us to this pile of a problem.
Having experienced in the past 20 months of the PNOY administration difficult (at times, painful) interrogation from our own media and publics, I can only say that my commitment to the peace process strengthened over these days simply because the President took it upon himself to make a stand.
Passing the law to postpone the 2010 election in the ARMM in order to synchronize regional with national elections, halt electoral patronage, clean up the governance institutions, and effectively deliver socio-economic services had not been easy. I myself have had to fend off demands for my resignation and misplaced inquisitions on our office’s proposed budget. But the President knew it had to be done despite the criticism and misunderstanding of his intentions. Starting this month of January, with the OICs in the region finally in place, we will forge ahead to meet these goals.
And in one other major test of the resolve for peace of this administration, we will remember how, following the misencounter in October 2011 in Al Barka, Basilan, between government troops and non-state armed groups including the MILF, the President stood firmly and honestly in quashing the agitation of the war mongers. His message was clear: this administration stands for the pursuit of all-out justice, not all-out war. We also saw how he, manifesting the integrity of a true leader, sought first to exact internal accountability. This act certainly deserves to see no less than the same integrity and manifest accountability from the other party for mistakes that may have been committed in this incident and those that may yet, though God forbid, come.
Running the peace process office has fortunately been a different experience under the leadership of P.Noy. Unlike my former boss, P.Noy will not sign or approve anything he doesn’t first scrutinize and that he thinks government cannot deli ver. Our President is engaged and involved not only in the big picture but also in the details, being especially meticulous about figures and funds and the specifics of our commitments. He is intent in ensuring that our plans do not only sound good, but that they are also doable and won’t create new problems. Inter-agency work has been rigorous and has always involved the funding perspective of DBM. We try to foresee and prepare for implementation stresses by already discussing post-conflict scenarios even as we craft plans and strategies to address today’s challenges. As a result and as our partners in Mindanao are aware, our panels and staff are on the ground and consulting with as many groups and stakeholders as possible. We have had around 60 of such consultations, and counting.
Unlike GMA, P.Noy has no plans of staying forever or even one day longer than his elected term in Malacañang, and he is therefore very conscious of his capability and of his plan to push the agenda and finish it within his term. Thus, what is re-echoed by our panels and our peace process office at every opportunity is the intense desire of this administration to have a signed agreement as soon as possible, hopefully, before 2013 or the midterm. Otherwise, we will run out of time for properly implementing what we have signed.
Finally, P.Noy is truly in the peaceful path to peace: he sees the need and imperative for peace with such clarity. As we kept on trying to explain to critics and supporters alike: the President’s advisers nor his peace team did not bring the President to Narita to meet with MILF chair Murad. Rather he brought us there. We did not have to convince him to take the stand he took after Al Barka; it was for him the only viable option.
Indeed, the President has issued a clear Letter of Instructions to our negotiating Panels, which set the following parameters for the conduct of peace talks:
• The Constitution, inclusive of the flexibilities provided within its provisions – Our Panels are bound to negotiate within the framework of the Constitution, while also recognizing that the Constitution is not inflexible; it provides spaces to effect changes to bring about peace and progress.
• The experience and lessons learned from past negotiations, and with the implementation of the peace agreement with the MNLF – Indeed there are very many lessons, some of them negative, but all are lessons that we must take to heart.
• Government’s ability to deliver – politically, economically, and socially – commitments that will be made and agreed upon – I daresay it will be the hallmark of this government that we will not sign any agreement that we cannot implement; or, another way of putting it is – we will implement every agreement that we sign, every commitment that we make. This needs to be said because, very sadly, as one can see from government’s track record, that has not been the case in the past.
• Inclusiveness and transparency with the sentiment of the general public to be considered as far as practicable, with the aim to restore full confidence and trust in the peace process.
It is a measure of transparency that the President’s instructions have been incorporated in Chapter 9 of the current Philippine Development Plan. Chapter 9 of the Philippine Development Plan for 2010-2016 is entitled “Peace and Security.” (You may download the entire PDP from the website of the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) - www.neda.gov.ph.) As its title connotes, the Chapter covers two sections: the first, sub-titled “Winning the Peace,” and the second sub-titled “Ensuring National Security.”
For the first time, we have a government that has stated as a matter of national policy that Promotion of the peace process shall be the centrepiece – not a by-the-way, not a sideline or side effect, but the centrepiece – of the internal security program as a testament to a government’s commitment to a policy of peace, reconciliation, and reunification. Peace is not just the absence of war or confliuct, but it is the sum total of the conditions that ensure human and social well-being in all its dimensions. This entails the winning of hearts and minds of the aggrieved and the afflicted while retaining the allegiance of the rest.
On this note, let me address one final point about the lessons and insights in 2011 that I would like to share with you, and this is about the quiet but significant reforms in the security sector. In his acceptance speech as the new AFP Chief of Staff, Gen. Jessie Dellosa had said, “Experience has shown us that the Muslim Mindanao crisis cannot be solved through a purely military solution because the problems in Muslim Mindanao are multi-faceted. Your AFP shall promote peace process as the centrepiece of our internal peace and security program.” We have already heard three Chiefs-of-Staff under the Aquino administration consecutively making this same pronouncement. In the aftermath of Al-Barka, among the first to defend peace were AFP personnel, with the military leadership firmly taking it standing up that accountability for what happened must be exacted. Also, one of the sober voices to come out was from a soldier, Lt. Que, who said, “My brother did not die for war. We do not want simply getting back. We do not want more violence.”
Vis-à-vis the recklessness of some of our media people during those days, it became clearer that the stereotype that it is the military that wants to make war and the civilians that want to have peace does not really hold. I have been in security meetings with the commanding officers where I have heard insights beyond the standard briefings in the past which focused on the strength of forces. I have heard soldiers and officers put forward their views on the root causes of war with a depth of analysis and insight that can compare with conversations I have held with civil society groups. And there are also, institutionally, significant reforms worth noting. Gen. Oban, who retired without “baon” (the unofficial take home retirement package that has allegedly been the tradition in the AFP), could look us straight in the eye as he spoke in his farewell speech: “From General Headquarters down to the lowest ranking foot soldier, we worked doubly hard on our continuing efforts to reform our organization, and remove every vestige of corruption in our ranks. Kaya kong ipagmalaki sa ating mga kababayan, na walang magnanakaw sa ating hukbong sandatahan. (I can claim to our countrymen that there are no thieves in our armed forces.)” Plunder cases have been initiated against the highest former officers of the military, and the hunt for Palparan has begun. Finally, there is the AFP’s new internal security plan (called “Bayanihan”) that embraced the paradigm shift in peacemaking and peace-building and that broadened the concept of national security to human security. The reforms that are happening in the security sector have such far-reaching impacts on our peace process that it would be unfortunate to not notice or recognize them at the least.
I will not attempt to make a summary of the lessons and insights that I have just shared, but just to close this portion about the year that was, the bottomline that I would like to leave with you is this: Ending all internal armed conflict in the country will not be easy but it is something that we will not let go, knowing the President and given the imperatives for peacemaking and peacebuilding at this particular juncture in our history.
As for the prospects in 2012, let me still say that the prospect for peace has never been this good. It is better than it has ever been, and a major reason for hope is the steadfast political leadership and supportive political climate, as manifested by the high trust and satisfaction ratings of the president and the equally high hopes of our people. At the end of the day, after a fierce roller coaster ride of a process, peace talks with the MILF is back on track, with both parties having been able to explain their positions, exploring road maps, and remaining open and hopeful that shared, lasting solutions can be found. Not of small consequence, we have seen more women involved in the negotiation process, in the so-called Track 1, with the addition of one more woman in the GPH panel, and the participation of a woman-consultant on the MILF side at least in the December round. This development – with hopefully more such breakthroughs in the future – helps us accomplish the “empowerment and participation” targets of the country’s National Action Plan for UN Security Resolution 1325.
Meanwhile, the process for a determined reform of the governance of ARMM has been set in motion. The closure tracks have been proceeding significantly as well, with forthright actions and discussions with the CPLA and RPMP-RPA-ABB, respectively, proceeding on the matter of profiling of combatants, registration of firearms, security and livelihood concerns. The CPLA has initiated its transformation into an unarmed, potent socio-economic force with a series of leadership trainings and its registration with SEC under a new name, the Cordillera Forum on Peace and Development.
We are proceeding with tempered optimism, knowing how, despite best efforts from both sides of the table, some things can still be hard to predict, some things can still go wrong. I know that we will continue to be interrogated and questioned, as the season will get even more political as the midterm election approaches. Some sectors of our media will continue to craft headlines that will sell and catch people’s attention, never mind the truth. Some sectors will probably again not be around in times when we need them most.
But we will persevere because we know that status quo is not an option. So every morning, we will wake up and be ready to face the worst even as we profess to reaffirm the faith and keep the hope. We will continue to reach out to a larger audience to explain until we are blue in the face that there is another way of resolving issues other than by force of arms. The peace process will need a vast constituency and we will be ready to speak until our voices grow hoarse from the din of the noise, to make our message be heard. We will continue to toil in the search for solutions instead of just criticize and complain. We will continue to build relationships based on dignity, mutual trust and respect, and hope they will continue to hold ground, especially in times when the grounds we stand on become shaky. And we will turn to each other for help to prolong our shelf-lives as peacemakers, in what could be a demanding and tiring process ahead until we see the light at the end of this tunnel. I know that in our hearts, peace has won. I do believe, and I persist in believing - that on the peace table are miracles starting to happen.
Maraming salamat po and good morning to everyone.
#
