WHILE we laud the valiant efforts from both camps to start the peace negotiations anew after it hit a snag last February 2017, the critical mass from the Filipino public to push the talks toward the right direction remain wanting. It is both a source of personal frustration, at the same time, a great sociological curiosity, why public attention on the on-going peace talks has generally remained tepid.
Here we are, at an important juncture of our nation’s history, when another opportunity to address the root causes of the armed conflict that has torn the nation apart for decades, is at hand. And yet the public’s preoccupation remain elsewhere, on matters that are, to my mind, far more trivial.
Yes, the drug problem is a major social issue, together with the lawless violence in our streets perpetrated by state forces. But these social realities afflicting our urban centers share the same roots with the protracted conflict in the countryside. It does not take that much of a stretch of the sociological imagination to understand that where there are no opportunities for social mobility, the disenfranchised either fight back or devise ways to survive outside the boundaries of what is considered moral or legal.
In my fantasy, the nation should be swept in a collective moment of soul-searching by now. The headlines should scream atonement, reconciliation, and coming to terms in the wake of what should be the far-reaching consequences regarding formal agreements on socio-economic reforms on land reform and national industrialization. Instead, it is the same old vitriol and power play splashed across front pages and the evening news on TV, indication of the constant state of affairs that have driven many Filipinos to the margins as pushers, addicts, and rebels.
Official government discourse remains stuck in the language of war and vengeance, and this kind of military posturing has marred previous peace negotiations. The beginnings of a culture of peace that should accompany the healing process to make the talks successful is not yet there so to speak. And in the balance of forces, I have always found it curious that the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, instead of being magnanimous and understanding given the resources and monopoly of legitimate violence at their disposal, have always taken the narrow and malicious route.
The messaging of President Duterte on the basis and direction of the peace talks under his administration used to be spot on in the early months of his administration. He has been heard a number of times to acknowledge the historical and just bases for rebellion especially since many of these conflicts he had to deal with directly as long-time mayor of the Southern city of Davao.
But he has since taken a sharp 180-degree turn in the last few months which has cast a dark shadow over the prospects of attaining a just and lasting peace. He is beginning to sound increasingly like his generals who are quick to dismiss the legitimacy of the left and Moro armed insurgencies, groups they have not been able to defeat militarily over the decades.
There is a need to remind him and his generals again, for instance that, taking up arms is a valid and just recourse for a people whose encounter of government, for the longest time, had been violent and oppressive.
They have reached and crossed the threshold to become rebels out of utter desperation and absence of trust with the established government. To demand their capitulation by forcing them to lay down their arms as a precondition to negotiations misses the point completely and reverts the on-going peace talks back to the drawing boards once again.
To also threaten the other party with the monopoly of violence of the state, by ordering the “flattening of the hills” from bombing runs of newly-acquired air assets, only fuel these conflicts to endure much longer. These indiscriminate bombs victimize not just the rebels but also the communities where they have taken root.
Initiated anew into the armed defense of their families under attack are the youths in these communities who will carry on the armed resistance for the coming generations. These are the lessons of the bitter wars waged during the various counterinsurgency operations from the martial law era up to the present that government forces still have not learned.
We are fortunate that there remain individuals and groups from within the Duterte administration who are champions of the peace process with the left. The fact that government, in general, and the president in particular, have been sending mixed signals about its peace agenda indicate to us us that much work needs to be done. It is clear that the emerging public discourse surrounding the on-going peace negotiations cannot be left solely in the hands of official sources alone. The peace advocates from the academe, the youth, and the general public need to have their voices heard too, lest the war hawks hijack once more what appears to be our last chance for peace.
