Speech of Sec. Teresita Quintos Deles at the 9th Quaker International Gathering

PHILIPPINE PEACE PROCESS: REFLECTIONS AND LESSONS-IN-PROGRESS
By SEC. Teresita Quintos Deles, Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process
At the 9th Quaker International Gathering
2 April 2011 – Bukal ng Tipan, Maryhill, Taytay, Rizal

First, let me thank you for choosing the Philippines as the venue of your 9th Quaker International Gathering. It’s an honor to hold this event, an international gathering of persons of common faith and good will, which is a special event anywhere it happens in our troubled earth.

And I must also thank you for inviting me to be part of this special gathering by asking me to give the first plenary talk at your meeting.  When Valerie Joy came to my office last October to invite me to speak before you, I wasn’t quite sure what exactly you wanted me to speak on.  But the invitation tapped into memories of my childhood when I first encountered stories of the “Friends” in the grade-school reading books we used in my school which was run by American nuns. While no longer remembering the plot, I remember these to be wonderful stories of openness and community. So, yes, I thought – at the end of another hard-working week at the helm of our government peace bureaucracy – it would be a good way to spend a morning in conversation with Friends. 

Your tradition of active and involved faith-based community engaged in the modern world resonates deeply with the character of peace advocacy in our country. Many of our community of peace-builders are faith-based, recently growing into an interfaith movement that seeks an active dialogue across their different faiths and life ways towards a common peace for the different peoples of our diverse islands.  Our peace movements are strongly committed, like you, to respect the diversity of cultures that characterize our people, and to promote a lasting peace based on faith and justice. I am truly honored to be in a roomful of Quakers – Friends – and to be given this chance to share and later in the open forum, to hear about your views and learn from your experiences too.

Among Philippine civil society, I am known now by the term “crossover,” a label we had improvised to refer to those who have moved from civil society work to government.  I am in fact a crossover, twice over, (and for some who don’t like me call it “double-crosser”) having first moved to government in 2001 after almost three decades immersed in NGO work, with many of those years spent in the women’s movement and focused on civil society peace advocacy since 1987.  In 2005, I resigned from government, together with nine other colleagues from Cabinet and heads of revenue bodies in the wake of the electoral scandal involving then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, our direct boss.  When President Benigno “Noynoy” Aquino assumed the presidency last June, 2010, having run on a platform in direct opposition to his predecessor, he asked me to return to government to take up the same post I had last held, as Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process.  And so I crossed over a second time – older now, hopefully wiser, certainly with a greater sense of eagerness, sometimes to the point of impatience, in wanting to finish the work on the peace process that we have started since the peace constituency first emerged more than two decades ago.  As I have said in different fora, I did not rejoin government in my senior years to simply cruise and coast along.  The imperative is to finish the critical aspects of our different peace tracks, including a firm start of implementation of signed final or comprehensive peace agreements, within the narrow window that we now have – that is, within the six-year term of P.Noy (as what his administration is called).  We are determined not to pass on another unfinished business to the next administration.  

I have been asked by Valerie and by Tina (Montiel) to share some updates with you on the peace process and the ongoing peace talks.

 
Today, we face a troubled and complex landscape of armed conflict and peacemaking in our country.  I describe its state as complex because we have multiple armed conflicts with peace processes now spanning decades – and still counting – which have undergone circuitous routes under several presidencies.  While it is the Mindanao peace process with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, or MILF, which currently attracts the most interest worldwide, the reality is we still have what has been called the longest running insurgency in our part of the world, being waged by the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army/National Democratic Front (CPP/NPA/NDF), with major battlegrounds now in northwestern Mindanao, eastern Visayas, and southern Luzon.

Also, we still need to put closure to peace processes with armed parties covering specific areas of the country, such as the Cordillera People’s Liberation Army (CPLA) in the Cordilleras in Northern Luzon, which signed a peace agreement with government in 1986, 25 years ago; and the RPMP-RPA-ABB (the long acronym is explained because it is the coming together of several groups which broke away from the mainstream armed communist forces shortly after our first people power uprising), which signed a truce with government in 2000, a decade ago last December.  We say these processes are unfinished because, as you may have noticed from the names they continue to carry, they still frame their existence and the structure and operations of their organizations as armies.  In Mindanao, there are conflict zones with the MILF certainly, but also with the NPA as well as with the MNLF or Moro National Liberation Front, from which the MILF was born, which signed a Final Peace Agreement with government in 1996 (an earlier agreement with Marcos was in fact signed in 1976) but which continues to identify itself with camps, base commands, and full military ranks, mainly generals.

In 2008, there was major a outbreak of armed hostilities between government forces and the MILF causing another round of displacements in the thousands of our families, in the wake of the rejection by the Supreme Court of Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domains which had already been initialed by the two parties and which was scheduled for signing in Kuala Lumpur on the day that the Supreme Court made its ruling.   

When our President, Benigno Simeon Aquino III, was still running for office, he already laid out his intent with regard the peace process.  In a speech he made on 22 April 2010, he stated: 

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 would continue on to say:

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.

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.

Today, entering the 10th month of the Aquino administration, the new Philippine Development Plan for the period 2010-2016 has been approved, in which Chapter 9 focuses on “Peace and Security.”  For the first time, it is stated in the government’s development plan that:

“The promotion of the peace process shall be the centerpiece 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 conflict, but it is the sum total of the conditions that ensure human and social well-being in all dimensions.”

While the government’s aim, as stated in the Chapter, is to win the peace, the goal for the medium term is to bring all armed conflict to a permanent and peaceful closure. This will be pursued through“negotiated political settlement of armed conflicts,” which we refer to as Track 1; and “effectively addressing the causes of armed conflict and other issues that affect the peace process,” which is referred to in the Plan as Complementary Tracks.  The Complementary Tracks cover (1) Focused development in conflict-affected areas through the program on Payapa at Masaganang Pamayanan (or Peaceful and Prosperous Communities), with the acronym PAMANA,which in Pilipino means “Legacy”; as well as pursuing an enabling policy climate for peace, the highlights of which I will briefly list later.

    For Track 1, the President has issued clear Letters of Instructions to our negotiating panels, which set the following parameters for peace talks, as follows:

•    The Constitution, inclusive of the flexibilities provided within its provisions.

So we recognize that we negotiate within our constitution, but also recognize that the constitution itself provide ways of amending it.

•    The experience and lessons learned from past negotiations, and with the implementation of the peace agreement with the MNLF.

Many lessons, some may be negative, but lessons they are that we must take to heart.

•    Government’s ability to deliver – politically, economically, and socially – commitments that will be made and agreed on.

For which we say: we will not sign any agreement that we cannot implement. Or the other way is to say: we will implement every agreement that we sign.

Because, as you can see from our track record, that has not been the case.

•    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.

Let me quickly update you on the developments in Track 1.

With the MILF, we concluded last February 9-10, in Kuala Lumpur, the 20th formal exploratory meeting on a positive note, with both parties arriving at agreements on significant issues. These include the renewal of the mandates of the International Monitoring Team and the Ad Hoc Joint Action Group, which are very important parts of the so-called “architecture” to maintain the ceasefire on the ground.  Most important, the MILF submitted its new draft for a Comprehensive Pact, which the GPH Panel has received as the presentation of MILF’s starting positions in the negotiations. (Therefore, some of those positions are hard.)

But perhaps, even more important for our communities on the ground, is that the Secretariat of the Committee on Cessation of Hostilities has reported that recorded incidents of clashes between government and MILF troops considerably diminished from 115 in 2009 to 14 in 2010. No recorded encounters have been reported from January 2011 to date. The next round of formal negotiations between the Government of the Philippines (GPH) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), upon the request of the Malaysian facilitator, has been moved from March 29-30 to April 27-28, 2011.

One week later, on 15-21 February 2011, in Oslo, formal negotiations between government and the CPP/NPA/NDF resumed after an impasse of almost seven years.  Despite a bumpy start, the round of talks ended with an unprecedented agreement to accelerate the pace of the talks.  Both parties agreed on an 18-month time frame to complete the agreements on the substantive agenda, covering socio-economic reforms, political and constitutional reforms, and cessation of hostilities and disposition of forces. 

What provides basis for guarded optimism on what has been a very protracted peace process is that, for the first time, a mode of ceasefire was agreed on and successfully adhered to by both parties, constituting the longest Christmas ceasefire in a decade last December to early January and, for the first time ever, for the entire duration of the talks last February.  At this time, three members of the NDF negotiating team from Europe are in the Philippines to conduct consultations and informal talks, hopefully, building a groundswell for the next round of talks tentatively set in June.

We recently concluded with the MNLF (one week after the Oslo talks) the 4th Session of the Tripartite Meeting in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on 22-23 February 2011, which resulted to our mutual agreement to move forward and to initiate the agreed mechanisms and processes for resolving those issues with no common ground.

The conversation with MNLF is not a negotiation--they are not new negotiation. They are a conversation about completing the implementation of the 1996 Final Peace Agreement.

Finally, we are pursuing the closure of peace tracks with the Cordillera Peoples’ Liberation Army and the RPMP-RPA-ABB, with whom the government has signed already signed peace agreements – that is, ten years ago for the RPMP-RPA-ABB, and twenty five years ago for the CPLA. We want to pursue a closure because we see more possibilities for working with them as soon as they fully transition into legal, unarmed, potent, above-ground organizations.
The CPLA wants to be an economic organization mainly in a cooperative form, the RPMP-RPA-ABB are of course interested in pursuing, aside from economic activities, the party list and move to political participation.
We see this as government finally demonstrating its fidelity to promises and commitments it has made in the past and its capacity to honor lives and futures lost in past struggles.  Thus far, the optimism has been mutual. We are determined to find an honourable, negotiated process with these groups.

And then there are the Complementary Tracks, which are about effectively addressing the causes of armed conflict and other issues that affect the peace process.This involves a number of simultaneous interventions, which I will try to briefly mention. For conflict-affected areas, the government is implementing a program for deliberately converging government services in conflict-affected communities. We want to make sure that no communities are left behind.In 2011, we identified communities in seven conflict-zones. We need not wait for the peace agreements to be concluded – the government must deliver basic services, as soon as possible, in areas that have the most need for them.

In pursuing an enabling policy climate, we put priority focus on the following:
•    Settlement of land disputes which is geared towards, finally, the rationalization of national land policies and strengthening of conflict resolution mechanisms on the ground.
•    Implementing the indigenous peoples’ agenda, centered on the full implementation, again finally, of the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act.
•    Pursuing an affirmative action agenda for Muslim Filipinos, with a highlight of reforming the management of the Hajj as appropriate to Islam’s most sacred act.
•    Governance reform in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) to promote accountability of the regional and local governments to their citizens; transformation of patronage politics, which seems to happen not only in ARMM, but everywhere in the Philippines; and dismantling of private armies.
•    Implementation of UN Security Resolution 1325 on women and peace, focused on protection during armed conflict and participation in peace processes, especially Track 1.
•    Addressing the needs of children in situations of armed conflict, with priority focus today on ending recruitment and use of child combatants by the MILF and the NPA.
•    Bringing an end to impunity on extra-judicial killings and human rights violations.
•    Security Sector Reform, centered on institutionalizing Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF).

Let me share with you just some of the challenges and issues that currently concern us with regard to the negotiated settlements of armed conflict:
    I will not refer to the problem on the substantive agenda; we know that is really difficult. These are longstanding issues that we need to address. These are changes of political structures, touch up on economic development.

First, on the timeframe. We hope to reach agreements by midterm so that the remaining term can be devoted for implementation. We do not want to turn over another unfinished business to the next administration. The longer the process takes, the greater is the cynicism generated.  We try to be faithful to a given time frame, as the days for dribbling the ball are over.

Second, with regard to accelerating processes while avoiding short-cuts: We owe it to our people to make up for the time lost on protracted processes by coming to terms with a more certain future—one that speaks about the interests at stake in less ambiguous terms, so that we can move forward once and for all.  In the past, we had sometimes agreed to what has been referred to as “creative ambiguity” in the formulation of joint statements and communiqués just so that we could come to an agreement.  But all this ambiguity has now caught up with us and we need to make our terms clear in order to avoid confusion and renewed contestation in the future.  I am praying for a dialogue that is real – not just one that will make us feel good, but one where all sides can be forthright in asking the hard questions.

Third, with regard balancing transparency and confidentiality.This is difficult but one that we have to continue to manage, as we remain committed to both – to transparency because, in the end, the peace process and the agreements that arise from it have to be owned by ordinary Filipinos to be sustainable; and confidentiality, because negotiations need safe space for trust to grow, new ideas to be explored and debated, strategies to be determined for new arrangements and fresh understanding to take root across long-standing conflict divides.

Fourth, on splinters and internal contestations.As a show of good faith, the government takes the representation of the parties at face value, at the same time, needing to be forthright about the seriousness of this concern when signs of internal splinters and divides make their presence felt.  Because it has consistently happened with past agreements, we need to ask now: what happens when a group signs a pact, and then splinters afterwards – as has happened with the MNLF, the CPLA, and the RPMP/RPA/ABB?  We need to make the parties we are talking to now accountable for all those they claim to represent.  Government cannot afford and will no longer condone endless negotiations with breakaway groups.

Fifth, on mechanisms for sufficient consensus.  Since I returned to government, I have been bugged by this question: How participatory is participatory?  How much consultation is sufficient?  For sure, there is no agreement which will make everyone happy; we can expect that there will be someone out there who will oppose.  So, when can we say there is sufficient consensus behind an agreement?  This notion was made clear to me when I had a dialogue with key actors behind the First Friday Agreement for Northern Ireland.  With the First Friday Agreement, political parties had served as the mechanism for determining sufficient consensus.  It is a splendid idea except that we don’t have real political parties here.  So we are challenged to determine the mechanism that will work for us with which ordinary citizens will identify as having stood for their interests and concerns.

Sixth, on the matter of demobilization and disposition of firearms.  I know this comes at the end of the process but the thinking about it needs to be put front and forward on the table.  Our government has previously signed peace agreements without clear provisions on this.  Even given our commitment for an honorable, negotiated peace settlement – with dignity for all concerned – we have to be upfront about the matter of armaments as there can be only one armed forces in the country.  The matter of lawlessness and loose weapons continue to complicate the process and will derail processes forward unless the matter is dealt with clarity and political will of all concerned.  

   
Finally, there is the challenge of accelerating post-conflict development, the matter of citizens-based mechanisms for monitoring, and the need for a constant accompaniment to the unfolding processes. Some of the things that are happening in the peace front, both on the ground and on the negotiation tables, are happening for the first time. We need not only witnesses to this process, but also companions who will be with us as we struggle to find our way.

In sum, I will say that the prospects for peace in the Philippines have never been this good. It is better that it has been for a very long time at least. And the reason for it is because of the political climate and the new political leadership. We have a political leadership that is keen not just to sign agreement, but is also committed to the governance essential to the implementation of any agreement. We have a political leadership whose first and last question is: what do our communities on the ground need?

It is important to find shared solutions that will last. The lessons we have learned some 25 years ago, when the peace constituency first emerged in our country, are the enduring lessons that continue to guide us in our path today. Let me just share two in particular.

One, that peace is not just made on the negotiating table while the people on the ground are just waiting for what will happen. The building of peace corridors with the local stakeholders and the victims of conflict have remained high in our priority. When I was in the civil society, and even more frequently when I joined government, I visited communities and sometimes spent the night with them. I met with Bangsamoro civil society representatives and bakwet, the local term for evacuees, who had been the most vocal to meet with the President and other national officials to raise their concern and voluntarism for peace. Whenever possible, I spend hours to get to know our dialogue partners on the other side of the negotiating table, including, if necessary, all the factions that want to sit on the table. I attend Muslim celebrations and ritual and initiated the creation of Salam Police for all the land order problems in Muslim communities in urban centers.I carry the good news about the government’s peace plan by speaking at regional and provincial conferences and dialogues, as well as by regularly granting interviews with the local and national media.
Time and again, our local communities have renewed their commitment for peace, the ceasefires have held. With grateful and humble heart, we have returned to the negotiating table, to start once more the rebuilding of communities scattered by the outbreak of hostilities two years ago.

We cannot forget the villages of mothers and fathers, children, and elderly who suffered the painful impact of armed fighting, that burned down their houses and fields, that have torn families apart, and killed innocent civilians including children. I am thankful to them for the ceasefires held to the mechanisms that put back into place with a combined hard work and determination of everyone.

Waging peace has never been easy and the people of Mindanao probably know this better than anyone else. Yet citizens and communities have not failed in standing up again and again. Despite having walked on often fractured and fragile path to peace, our different peoples have persevered, with further resolve they engaged for the long haul knowing that shortcuts and fixers may work for the moment, but will really not hold.

Second, is a note that we are crafting a peace shared by all. And, in the process our appreciation of the distinct but complementary roles of the different stakeholders has become deeper and palpable. I hope the relationships we have built based on dignity, mutual trust, and respect will continue to hold, especially in times when the grounds we stand on will become unsafe, as we are sure they will be in some point.

I am grateful that the international community has helped us substantially in this respect, in addition to many other things.The tremendous support of the international community has certainly pushed us to overcome the difficult challenges that have come our way.

In ending, let me share with you, on a personal level, the need to sustain ourselves in this work. Peacemakers, being human beings, can get tired too.  So we need to attend to our own rituals of renewal, and find new sources of strength and inspiration so that we can sustain ourselves in this service which we know will still continue for the long haul.  For some of us have been in this work for more than five decades, the sense of impatience can set in, even as we know there are no shortcuts to achieving a just and lasting peace.  It helps much to have a sense, every now and then, of the strides we’re making, and the markers of our incremental successes whenever and wherever it happens.

I continue to be surprised, and to be inspired too, by many stories of the quiet, conscientious, heroic work of peace-building and peace-making on the ground, by the ones some of whom may be obscure or little known beyond the communities whom they serve.

The daily toil and toll of keeping and making peace can challenge even the most persevering among us.  It’s not an easy job to keep the parties to a conflict to be consistently committed to dialogue, and to keep reminding them until you are red in the face that there are other ways of resolving issues than just by force of arms.  It is not easy, but we persevere, because our people cannot afford to suffer again and anymore.
The peace process is sustained by hope; it is the trademark of all peacemakers. And, you can explain better that I can how hope is intimately connected to faith. Someone named Robert Brault had said, “At the point where hope would otherwise become hopelessness, it becomes faith.” 

Thank you, and may you have a fruitful and meaningful conference. Peace be with us all.