Peace Energy Unleashed: Making Sense of and Revitalizing our Peace

Ceasefire, Ceasefire: Breaking the Escalation of Violence

2011-10-21T11:54:00.000-07:00

War talks is more terrible than actual war because violence exists without end.

The recent clashes between the Philippine troops and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) rebels in Basilan island and Zamboanga Sibugay province have brought back talks of an all-out war. With scores of deaths from both sides, the war talks driven by frustration, anger, blame and revenge seems to be charming the public at large.

The media is even fanning this flame of war talks by interviewing military personnel, family members of slain soldiers, ex-and current government officials who advocate the war talks.

To overcome these negative energies is the greatest show of strength. Well, easier said than done. Whatever others say, I commend the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines for showing the government's resolve for peacebuilding. President Aquino reaffirms the ceasefire agreement and orders no military operations against the MILF rebels who assaulted the soldiers.

As this time, we have yet to hear about the hundreds of civilians who fled their houses because of the clashes. We could imagine them praying the end of hostilities, violence.

Ceasefire, ceasefire!

Let the blinding smoke from the guns settle down (that we may see each other clearly). Let the harrowing sounds of gunshots be gone (that we may hear and listen to each other's plea).

With ceasefire, we break the cycle of escalation of conflict. We break the expectations of the other side of retaliation and revenge. We break the perception that we are insincere about peace talks.

This time, let us mean peace. And we mean peace.

With peace talks, we build trust of our intentions and goals to be inclusive. We bridge our differences with the other side. We connect our dreams of a shared and brighter future in one homeland under three stars and a sun.

Peace talks offers hope until the end. It is more worth dying for.

Social Distance in Facebook: Breaking or Building Barriers Among Differentiated Groups in Cyberspace

2011-10-02T07:37:00.000-07:00

Source: http://www.sgclub.com/lifestyle

Social networking sites have captured the interest and aspiration of people especially Filipinos and Filipinas to make contacts and connect with families, friends, and others. To illustrate this, imagine Facebook having over half a billion account users all over the world. Twenty-six million of those are found in the Philippines. Thus, albeit virtually, numerous contacts are made by differentiated groups through Facebook.

Research has shown that contacts among equals of differentiated groups reduce social distance. With the popularity and wide use of Facebook in the world including the Philippines, do contacts occur among differentiated groups? Or Facebook further solidifies the ingroup and marginalizes the outgroup? Does Facebook break or build social distance among differentiated groups?

It is hypothesized that Facebook facilitates ingroup formation and strengthens its cohesion. Moreover, Facebook does not intentionally marginalize the outgroup. It helps reduce social distance among groups especially those who have a sizeable number of friends from other groups.

If you have a Facebook account, please take the survey here.

The results of this survey will be presented at the 2011 Philippine Sociological Society National Conference in Ateneo de Naga University in Naga City on October 14-15, 2011.

Thank you very much.

Searching for a Hero (Happy Father's Day)

2011-06-19T05:19:00.000-07:00

“Only the leader’s own involvement in reality, within a historical situation, led them to criticize this situation and to wish to change it.” – Paulo Friere, Pedagogy of the Oppressed

As we celebrate the 150th birthday of Jose Rizal, are we still in search of a hero?

Coincidentally, on the same day, we celebrate Father’s Day.

Oftentimes we are asked, whom do you consider your hero? And usually we enumerate names we just read from history books. We are told by their exploits and heroism during the times when we could not even relive their lives except the trying words of our historians, documentary shoots, and life-imitating films. Almost, yet persistent in their larger-than-life attempt to capture history, our scholars have provided us a near-to-life panorama of our academic past. We owe it to them if we see Rizal as repository of almost supernatural talents, Bonifacio as a brave man without fear of death, Aguinaldo as a revolutionary who waged his own revolution inside the Philippine revolution. These are the most known heroes and widely read about personalities in the history of our country.

Why Rizal or Bonifacio or Aguinaldo then? What about Bicolano heroes like Jose Ma. Panganiban or Tomas Arejola? Why not our fathers?

For one, our history-book heroes exemplified a life destined to be great, and willingly faced a death by sacrificing their lives. Of course, their deaths were their heroic acts that defined their heroism. To the idealist, they have done in an extraordinary way what any ordinary man could not. To the realist, they simply fulfilled the task assigned by the call of times. To the gestaltist, they completed the missing part of our aspiration for freedom and totality as a nation. To most of us, they responded to the challenge of self-determination. To the rest, they were merely the stories of men printed in the paper, or depicted in a monument, imaged in a bill, or painted in a card.

More than the epic life and death they led, their heroism was highlighted by the classic struggle to free our country from the bondage of colonization of Spain, to liberate from the oppressive imperialism of America, and to save the nation from the inclusive expansion of Japan.

Today the war waged by our heroes continues. It is not yet won but little victories were gained. Although our country does not confront armies of the imperious foreigners, it faces enemies in various forms. The most formidable of these is the prevalent poverty of its own people. Slowly, poverty is eating up what has been gained by our heroes, including the very foundation of our nationhood – our dignity as a people. In times like this, our country needs a hero. Soon, our new hero will certainly rise. I don’t know where I get my hope for this prayer but I am sure somewhere, someone will answer the signs of times.

Our Philippines definitely is in dire search of a hero who will empower its people to perfect its being and fate. Someone who while in power and given the responsibility will yield the same to the people. Have the Ramon Magsaysay Awards helped us find our modern hero? Has the Nobel Prizes eluded us for some reasons?

Your guess is as good as the whole nation who practically begs for everyone to share a piece of this responsibility and power for her/his own people. Our heroes responded to the signs.

And there are other nameless and faceless individuals who do their own share of heroism in our struggle to regain what we had in the beginning of history.

There is certainly one with a name and face that is familiar to us. He may even come with several names (Tatay, Ama, Papa, Father) - but there is only one that endears him to us. Call him, and a hero is with us.

Youth for Peace: Young Adults Who are Changing the World

2011-03-04T11:03:00.000-08:00

The Junior Chamber International, or JCI, is a membership based, non-profit coalition of some two hundred thousand young people, aging in range from 18 to 40. Their goal is simple: to create lasting and positive change in our world, using community-based initiatives to create a global revolution of positive progress.

Once a year, the JCI honors ten up and coming youths through the Ten Outstanding Young Persons of the World award. Ranging in age from 18 to 40, the award is bestowed upon those young leaders who have shown true innovation, extraordinary service, or a new and creative way to think about an existing community issue.

Of the ten, we will focus on three who are moving us, as a collective unit, toward a much improved and more peaceful world.

Melanie Hennessy visited Nepal when she was only 18 years old. She soon found a full time position in Nepal seeking to alleviate the plight of its children. Having been recognized in the humanitarian/Voluntary Leadership role for her JCI honors, Hennessy established a school in Nepal, with an Orphanage fund set up back home at her Irish University NUI Galway. In addition to starting another charity, TEAM Nepal, she returned in 2010 to create Walking Hospitals, in which volunteers shadow local doctors from village to village to provide assistance to those in need. Melanie was also selected as one of Ireland's Outstanding Young People of the Year.

Uyapo Ndadi, of Botswana, turned down a well paying job at a law firm to pursue his passions. Founding the Botswana Network on Ethics, Law, and HIV/AIDS (BONELA), he fights against the spread of the virus, as well as for the rights of its sufferers. As an advocate of people's rights, Ndadi fights against discrimination in the workplace while providing legal aid free of charge to clients. He works with communities at all levels in an effort to bring denizens into the fight with BONELA. Uyapo is now the Director of the organization he started, bringing ethics and honesty to the role as he continues to fight for the human rights of his people in Botswana, a country which has one of the highest rates of HIV in the world.

For the Business, Economic, or Entrepreneurial accomplishment, the JCI gave the award to Emily Cummins. Known for creating the toothpaste squeezer for Arthritis sufferers and a water-carrying device designed for Third World use, Cummins bested herself with the creation of her award-winning portable refrigerator. The solar powered, sustainable device can be built from household items, making it the perfect instrument for Third World countries. In Namibia, Emily became known as the "Fridge Lady" as she toiled for five months in research and development phases. The work paid off—her invention is now saving the lives of countless Africans because medical supplies, as well as food, can now be moved in an uncontaminated fashion, regardless of local water quality. The sick can be treated like no other time in recent memory, all thanks to an invention that 21-year-old Emily thought up in her grandfather's potting shed.

To think on what these young people are accomplishing—all in their early to mid twenties—is truly mind-boggling. It gives us hope as a nation, a world, and as a community tied together in the global marketplace.

When you read about such positive and life-altering changes being made using creativity, wit, and intelligence, it belies an attitude that we can all step forward to make positive changes in our own communities.

Start with something small. You don't need to change the world with the first thing you try.

Bryce Hammons is a guest blogger for My Dog Ate My Blog.

Human Rights Against Human Wrongs

2011-01-22T15:44:00.000-08:00

“The conception, the idea of Right asserted its authority all at once, and the old framework of injustice could offer no resistance to its onslaught.” – Hegel, Philosophy of History

Why is it that humans feature and point out what is wrong rather what is right?

Whatever happened in Pangantucan, Bukidnon in 2000 that resulted to the deaths of 16 cult members of the Catholic God’s Spirit and 4 militiamen is up to the prayers to justice to both victims? While the public is painstakingly dragged to blur the truth, the authorities are digging holes to justify the unspeakable acts of their subordinates. They are trying to cheat the TV footages that bear the raw images of people being killed. The veracity of those shots of film could equal the law of gravity that all things that go up must come down. Yet they have the face to declare that what happened should be viewed in its entire context, not in a few minutes of footages. Conversely the public cannot be told to think in which way the authorities will want them to think. Those film shots sonorously unveil the only piece of truth the public can get hold of the gory incidence in Bukidnon, the Philippines.

It is defined in the Rules of Engagement of the Philippine National Police that the use of force is justified only if it becomes the last resort when all other peaceful and non-violent means have been exhausted. With guns ready for action anytime, the authorities expose themselves to the slightest provocation of using force not as the last resort but the first line of defense. The two excuses are mutually dichotomized and yet can be referred interchangeably as if each one were of the same kind. These two are being invoked by the authorities as the justification of the enraged overkill of 16 people that should have been a simple arrest of one wanted person. Any concerned citizen would like to think that this becomes an exception rather than a rule with the activation of the CAFGUs. Otherwise the authorities are implicitly inviting citizens to arm themselves if confronted by the same undisciplined and haphazardly trained units of militiamen. This implication runs counter with the current drive of Dept. Interior Local Government in getting rid of the unlicensed and loose firearms, which are normally used in illegal activities and crimes. While the authorities are trying to confiscate the loose firearms and encouraging the citizens not to arm in order to protect themselves, they should also observe the discipline and training of those who are tasked and supposedly to protect the public. Unless this is achieved, they cannot talk peace and have guns at the same time.

Anyway, what on earth has compelled man to do such ferocious act against another man? I am tempted to dismiss the notion that man is inherently evil but it brings me to light that we like to watch boxing and cockfighting, two figures scalping, hitting bloodily. It is further reinforced when Echegaray was sentenced to die and how we all waited for its consummation. Interestingly, the sight of blood and conflict excite the vulnerability of giving in easily to our temporal indulgence. However, the great Rousseau helps me to come to a personal conviction, that man is naturally good and that it is by institutions alone that he becomes evil.

2010 Nobel Peace Prize: Pursuing the Hard Peace This Time

2010-12-29T17:36:00.000-08:00

As the year 2010 is about to end, let us take a look at the controversial Nobel Peace Prize which again hugged headlines.

For 2010, the Norway-based Nobel Committee decided to award the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobao, a Chinese literary writer, professor, and human rights activist.

The west applauded the decision. And human rights groups and activists commended the awarding to one of their fellows. However, Chinese government opposed the awarding to one of its jailed dissidents. Several governments including Cuba and Venezuela joined China in criticizing the popularization of a "western" idea of peace. Later, at least sixteen countries boycotted the awarding ceremony.

Why was there strong opposition to Liu Xiaobao receiving the Peace Prize?

Normally, the government of the country of origin of the winner would share in the pride and honor of bringing the Nobel Peace Prize home. How could China celebrate with the award when it would be given to its convicted dissident? How could China and other countries that are ruled by deviants to the "western" standards of governance applaud to the awarding?

When Mother Teresa won the same award in 1979, was there a public opposition? None.

When the award went to Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1964, the world embraced the awarding to MLK because he had fought ideas and beliefs in hierarchy system. He did not directly challenge the government.

There is parallelism though of this year's award to Aung San Suu Kyi in 1991 and Nelson Mandela in 1993. Both Suu Kyi and Mandela challenged their governments, and as a consequence of their actions, they were detained for several years. But Myanmar (Burma) was no China at that time. South Africa elected Mandela as the first ever black President of the country.

In Liu Xiaobao's case, he has challenged his government to implement political reforms. And now, he is serving an 11-year imprisonment for inciting to subvert Chinese government.

China is recognized as a global power with economic, military, and cultural strength. Almost every country wants a piece of China, be it in trade, finance, military, cultural exchange, scholarship, religion, environment, etc.. In other words, China could afford to stand up with its leverage.

Notably, the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize decided to pursue a hard peace. It is a peace that deals with political institutions which are represented by a government. This year's award legitimizes the works and advocacies of Liu Xiaobao and other jailed political dissidents in other countries.

This made 2010 Nobel Peace Prize controversial because governments would definitely defend their political institutions. In contrast to soft peace epitomized by Mother Teresa dealing with humanitarian and social issues, hard peace, as the name suggests, is expected meet strong opposition from those who benefit from the political institutions that perpetuate structural violence to the peoples.

Oh My, What Happened To The Philippines?

2010-12-10T03:33:00.000-08:00

Today is Human Rights Day.

It could have been splendid for human rights advocacy if governments' representatives had intended to attend the awarding of Nobel Peace Prize to a Chinese human rights activist who is jailed because of his advocacy. Then, it would have been clear that globally human rights, as a collective set, is at the heart of governance.

It could have been.. But China was reported to have waged an intense campaign and pressure to boycott the awarding. Earlier, eighteen (18) countries have succumbed to that pressure. Now, at least only sixteen (16) countries because Serbia and Ukraine made a turnaround and announced that it would send a representative to the ceremony in Oslo. Among the sixteen countries, the Philippines is one of them.

How could one view the non-attendance of the Philippines in the awarding ceremony of the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize to a jailed Chinese dissident?

One way to view it is to look at the explanation of the invited party. The Philippine government justified its conspicuous absence by saying that the non-attendance is not a boycott but a conflict of schedule of the Ambassador to Norway. Anyone buying this justification? Come on, even a 5-year old kid could provide a better reason than that.

Another way to look at it is the rise of China in the global arena. With so much cash reserves, China has leverage to influence decision-making of any governments in need of necessary investments. The Philippines is a host to huge Chinese investments, making China its third largest trading partner. And it can only get bigger and bigger.

And another way to view it is to take account of the recent hostage-taking incident in Manila which killed eight Chinese tourists. The non-attendance of the Philippines could be its way of atonement and seeking reconciliation to the aggrieved and angry Chinese peoples and government.

Alongside with the Philippines, a number of countries would not be around during the awarding. I am not going to dwell on the list of countries that are alleged to have succumbed to the Chinese pressure and supported the Chinese protest against the Nobel. Although many point to the similarities of those that will boycott the awarding, I would not magnify the obvious defining characteristics of these countries - the way they treat and uphold human rights in their own jurisdictions.

Each country has its own reason for its non-attendance. I would leave the evaluation of their reasons to the reasoning public and readers.

Measuring Volunteering in a Jesuit university in the Philippines

2010-11-06T08:38:00.000-07:00

“To be men and women for others,” this Ignatian motto is ingrained in students, staff and faculty members of any Jesuit universities in the world. Volunteering is one way of being men and women for others. After three decades since Pedro Arrupe, SJ, coined this Ignatian motto, how is one Jesuit university in the Philippines living up to the motto through volunteering?

This survey-research seeks to know the extent of participation and distribution of a Jesuit university students, administrators, faculty and staff members who actively and freely took part in the community outreach and public service activities and programs initiated and implemented by the university and other organizers. Moreover, it also identifies the motivational factors that affect their spirit of volunteerism.

The Ateneo de Naga University (ADNU) as a modern university serves in four functions; instruction, research, extension and public service, and preservation and transmission of culture. The four are expected to flow from and contribute to each other (Javier 1995). Thus far in Ateneo de Naga University, various councils and committees were instituted to put premium on the first two traditional functions, instruction and research. Consequently as in other universities, among the four, the third function -extension and public service as well as the fourth one, are sparingly given the same regard as instruction and research.

Read the whole research here.

Share or Restrain Power?: Rethinking of the University Students’ Participation in Decision-making

2010-10-21T15:42:00.000-07:00

When the Costa Rica-based University for Peace (UPeace) launched the Dual Campus Master Programme on International Peace Studies in the Philippines in 2007, there were 30 students from 11 Asian countries who made it to the Programme. Being the first batch of students under the new Dual Campus Programme, the students experienced the complexity of decision-making under the set-up of dual campus. While the center of decision-making remains at Costa Rica, there are two personnel of UPeace who have delegated authority to attend and respond to some issues raised by the students. One particular issue that was strongly raised by many students was about the decision of UPeace to arrange the accommodation of all students using their stipend without the students’ participation in the decision-making process. The students felt that any decision-making that concerns them should include their participation in the process.

Like any other organizations in a free and democratic society, a university adopts a certain decision-making mechanism that governs and affects its faculty, staff, students, and other members. The students, being a significant part of a university, should play an active part in the decision-making process that affects them. There is a “generally accepted political proposition that in free societies all those affected by a social policy have an inalienable right to a voice in its formulation” (McGrath 1970, 51). However, a university operates within and is embedded in a power structure that defines mostly its decisions. Morison (1970, 25) describes the “reality of power structure in the university that implies the acceptance of an administrative diagram which shows power-flowing down from the trustees, through the president to the faculty, with nothing left for distribution to the lowly students.” He continues that “the university is perceived to be virtually beyond the reach of the influence of students. It is this perception which lies behind much of the clamor about student powerlessness and the demand to be allowed to make decisions affecting the student’s own life” (Ibid, 51).

Acceptability of an effective decision hinges on the kind of participation given by the people concerned and involved (Prescott, 1980). In a university, some students are passive recipients of decisions but many students refuse to be just on the receiving end. The more the decision excludes participation of students, the more they will likely reject the decision and clamor for inclusion in the decision-making. For the students, a decision can be more effective if they take part in the decision-making process. This proposition will expectedly face objections from university administrators and educators.

McGrath (1970) enumerates five objections to student participation in the decision-making. First, due to their large numbers, students will dominate decision-making bodies in universities. Second, due to limited life experiences, students’ immaturity will reflect in their decision-making. Third, due to limited number of years in a university, students will miss to look at the larger and longer picture. Fourth, students have yet to gain specialized abilities and professional values. And finally, being part of decision-making will interfere with the students’ studies and gainful employment. It would be pointed out that these objections do not hold ground for the following reasons. Let us take them one by one. The apprehension that the students will dominate in the decision-making bodies is very unlikely to happen since members of these bodies are representatives of various groups that are proportionately represented. Both the immaturity of students and lack of professional values will be better dealt with by the challenges and lessons to be handled and learned at the interactive discussions of these decision-making bodies in which the students participate. The students are not supposed and expected to ponder the larger and longer picture of the issues because this is the work of administrators who shall balance the present and future needs and goals. The students are expected to give opinions and concrete examples on the issues based on their experiences and perspectives. The concern that students’ participation in the decision-making will interfere in their studies and gainful employment undermines the motivation of students towards their studies and employment. These objections to the students’ participation rest on a shallow ground to merit attention on their arguments.

On the other hand, there are six justifications for students’ participation (Ibid, 1970). First, with the sophistication of students and their serious and informed interests, it will be good and instructive to listen to students’ interesting voices and ideas. Second, in preparation for the students to be good citizens, they should be educated and exposed to democratic exercises like school elections and participating in decision-making activities. Third, through their experiences, students can improve higher education in general. Fourth, by treating them as maturing adults, students can help abolish the doctrine of In Loco Parentis (in place or position of a parent) in universities. Fifth, of course in the teaching-learning environment, students can have a hand in the improvement of instruction. Sixth and finally, students are recognized voice and presence in the universities, and that they should not be ignored or excluded. These justifications underscore the significance of students’ participation in the decision-making.

There are four core values in the participatory decision-making that a university can adopt (Kaner 1996, 24). First is the encouragement of full participation of all members. Second is the mutual understanding of the legitimacy of each other. Third is the inclusive solution from which various perspectives and needs are considered. The last core value is the shared responsibility of the task. This is to highlight that the task of decision-making is not on the officers, managers, and administrators alone but is shared by everybody who has a stake on the decision to be made.

Kaner (1996, 29) also presents the benefits of participatory values in decision-making. These benefits are personal learning of those who participate in the decision-making, development of effective groups, and sustainable agreements. Of particular interest here are the sustainable agreements that are netted by participatory decision-making. If students are included in the decision-making processes in universities, there will be less restlessness and clamor among students to be transparent and accountable in the decision-making process since they are part and privy of the process.

Should universities then share their power on decision-making with their students? Or should they restrain power in themselves? The quality and effectiveness of a decision lie in the openness of the universities for participatory decision-making since they traditionally hold the key for this kind of decision-making. Obviously, the benefits of participatory decision-making are there to reap. The students are there to be tapped for their sea of potentials. The universities are there to facilitate these potentials into fruition. Thus, whatever the tasks and functions of universities, they are always seen as shared responsibility, with the community, parents, local officials, government, and especially students who care for their education, have a stake as anyone else, and want to seize the opportunity to take command of their actions and future as responsible members of society.

References:

Kaner, Sam. “Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory Decision-making.” British Columbia: New Society Publishers, 1996.

McGrath, Earl. “Should Students Share the Power?: A Study of their Role in College and University Governance.” Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1970.

Morison, Robert. “Students and Decision making.” Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1970.

Prescott, Bryan. “Effective Decision-making: A Self-development Programme.” Hampshire: Gower Publishing Company Limited, 1980.

To a certain Carlos who came to church

2010-09-30T19:53:00.000-07:00

Dear Carlos,

As you read this, I pray for your well-being inside the juvenile jail cell.

Surprised and shocked, I could not hold shaking my head for quite a number of times after I saw your own "civil disobedience." As I saw it, there was no civility in the act. Yeah, it was a show of disobedience.

I understand the anger and disgust in the threat of excommunication from the president of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) to President Aquino. To my mind, it is uncalled for and inappropriate for a representative of highly respected and influential CBCP to give such a threat to a newly elected and legitimate President. It is a plain display of moral ascendancy at the time when the Church is confronted by abuses and scandals worldwide.

As a Filipino citizen, you have the right to defend your President and voice your sentiments on issues.

I am a Filipino too. And President Aquino is my President too. And our Philippine society, I believe, is governed by laws, decency, and tolerance. Even Rizal, I imagine, would not claim and see himself in your act of disrespecting the institution and sobriety of a holy Mass. As far as I know and you know this more than I do, Rizal was a sensible man.

If you want the Church to get out of politics, you are not alone. I would also favor to see this. I don't like my church to get involved in the operations of the civilian government.

However, both the Church and the State have quite the same constituency in the Philippines. Besides, the issue at hand directly affects the flocks of the Church and citizens of the Philippine government on their moral decision-making. In this case, I would like my church and government to help me reach an informed decision.

And at this point, they are doing their jobs well, except the threat from a representative of CBCP. [Again, I'd stress that he is not the Church. Like me, your neighbors, your relatives and friends, he is a member of the Church. So when you direct your anger and disgust to the Church, you also vent those to us. In catechism, we know that the Church resides in every believer.]

As Filipinos, we know and understand basketball. I hope you like basketball as most Filipinos do. In NBA, imagine someone guarding Lebron James or Kobe Bryant. The guard knows that James or Bryant will score more than ten or twenty points in any given game. But does it mean that he should stop guarding James or Bryant because both will score anyway? NO! He still has to do his job - guarding those prolific scorers.

The Church is playing guard here. It does and will do something that James or Bryant and their fans won't like, but the guard must not bow down, whether he is liked or not. It is his job to guard and stop the scoring.

The Church is guarding against actions without responsibility and obligation. Actions can be done in certain conditions (e.g. sex in the context of marriage). After marriage, parenting is such a huge responsibility. It is like sharing the gift of creation. With this gift comes responsibility. Condoms and artificial contraceptives do not remind us of this gift. Rather, they result to a wasted gift.

I feel that there is a misplaced blame towards the Church on overpopulation which is said to be dragging the country to the pits of poverty. Because of its policies and advocacies on abortion and contraceptions, the Church is being made as a scapegoat of something that it has not caused.

Yeah, I agree that we have a problem on overpopulation. But it is too much to relate overpopulation alone with poverty. I hope you have seen a politician that has become poor or has remained similar in economic standing after his/her term ends. I wish you had been to the rural areas where almost no infrastructure project is being implemented while in Metro Manila, a paved road is being dug out to be paved again. The basic problem is on the management and distribution of the country's resources. We are not a poor country, supposedly, but we are. Is it because of the Church?

I hope you have a good sleep inside the jail with your new friends. I know that you are an amazing storyteller. But your last story does not amaze me at all. Anyhow, you have the prayers of millions for your well-being.

Yours,

Juan Filipino Catholico

Peace as restoring broken relationships and building positive ones

2010-09-20T18:54:00.000-07:00

Today, September 21 is recognized as the International Day of Peace.

Global peace is not only the concern and work of government and business leaders, it is also our concern and work as global citizens. As such, there are things that we can do to contribute to global peace - from ourselves to our immediate surroundings. These are the things that are under our control and influence.

Peace is not only a global issue. It is interpersonal as much as personal. Today, let us do some concrete things for peace in our hearts and minds by restoring broken relationships and building positive ones.

Have we hurt someone? Or someone has hurt us? Are we in good terms with them? In our family, have we kept that wound that never heals? Have we subdued ourselves because of pride and/or position?

NOW, it is time to confront ourselves, to ease the tension within us, to release the negative energies brought about by hurts, wounded pride, lofty position, and scarred past.

If we have a higher Being, have we made ourselves His/Her image here on earth? Hence, we shall reestablish our relationships with our God to be able to show His/Her goodness, blessings, and light through our actions, words and thoughts.

Pray. Read and be open to the Word.

To ourselves, have we made an utmost effort to be free - that is to do what is necessary and right, or have we come short of our own expectation and capability? Hence, we shall be free of the burdens of worldly competitions and human tendencies that revolve around our selfish world. We shall overcome the temptations of flesh, wealth, and prestige.

Let us Pray. Read and be open to the Word. Join formal and informal community activities and fellowships. Exercise. Be honest. Be strong. Listen to your hearts. Purify your thoughts. Doubt your instincts. Be intimate and in touch with our humanity.

To others, have we respected their humanity? Have we denied them of their rights and dignity? Have we observed and followed the local and national laws?

Let us Pray. Read and be open to the Word. Join formal and informal community activities and fellowships. Exercise. Be honest. Be strong. Listen to your hearts. Purify your thoughts. Doubt your instincts. Be intimate and in touch with humanity. Change ways. Welcome others. Share. Reach out. Respect.

Let us Think good, do good, be good. Then, things will be better.

Let us Believe.

This is for today. Do not forget that tomorrow is another day.

Let us Repeat.

Expel not those among us, the Gypsies

2010-09-16T16:17:00.000-07:00

".. fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer.." - Shylock's defense, The Merchant of Venice by Shakespeare

Are Gypsies european? (note that european is in small letter). This is to open up discussion. And not to express concluding and derogatory statements.

In the past weeks, more than a thousand Gypsies, or Roma, were expelled from France by the government that is inspired by an egalitarian goal since the French Revolution. And so the world and Gypsies thought.

French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, ordered the dismantling of over a hundred illegal camps of the Gypsies, one of the poorest ethnic group in Europe. His justification was that these camps were havens of crimes and displayed undignified living conditions in France, a country that has a generous welfare system. To show its condescending generosity, French government voluntarily provided cash payment of more than 300 euros per expelled adult and 100 per child.

Is the French government singling out and targeting an ethnic group on its policy of dismantling illegal camps and expulsions of those staying in the country allegedly without means of supporting their stay?

That is as plain as snow for the critics to see. However, the French government argued and defended that there is no targeting of any ethnic group. It is simply exercising its right to expel people illegally staying within its own jurisdiction for security reasons.

Why are the Gypsies living in such an undignified condition in the first place? Is it the failure of the governments to integrate them in society? Who is looking after them?

The recipient of the expelled Gypsies is Romania, a new member of European Union. The issue is not about new member confronting a founding member, nor a poor member vis-a-vis a rich member of the Union.

It is about an ethnic group that has long been victimized by structural violence such as discrimination, prejudice, and neglect, in the European countries which are incidentally looked up to by developing countries. The issue takes a lot of less ground for these countries to condemn any discriminatory acts by developing countries against ethnic minorities in their territories.

If I were the ex- policeman, this could be my open letter

2010-08-26T13:16:00.000-07:00

To whom it may concern,

These past few days, much has been written about what I did which killed eight tourists and injured several others. The tragedy caused unfortunate and yet understandable reactions from those who care dearly about the victims, me, and our Philippines as a country. There have been fault-finding and blame-pointing here and there.

I did what I did. And I paid for it. The outcome was not what I had imagined.

Did I really intend to hurt and kill anyone? No.

I was neither a terrorist nor a criminal. I used to protect civilians as a policeman. As a dedicated officer, I received commendations including an outstanding policeman in 1986. I was a family man, a comrade to Manila's Finest.

For months, I suffered from the thoughts of a wasted career and a ruined life. What else could a man live for if these things were taken away from me without due process?

As a citizen, I wrote letters to authorities to look at my case. I did not get any response. One response, either positive or negative, would have been sufficient to calm my restless thoughts. I was just another Juan, a series of numbers in files.

One day, I could not bear it any longer. I did what I knew could catch their attention. I was a policeman, in my heart and outside. I risked my life in the call of duty. With commitment on my uniform and life, I prepared myself for this day.

It could have been any other buses in the area. I did not target Chinese to be my hostages. It so happened that their bus was where I was.

There were two simple things in my mind. I really thought that they were simple. I did not ask for huge amount of money. I did not seek fame. I just wanted my life and career back.

One, I wanted to expedite the resolution of my administrative case in the Ombudsman for alleged extortion. Two, I demanded to be reinstated as a policeman with full benefits as I neared my retirement from service. I would like to end my career with pride.

I knew too that this could be the defining moment of my career. It was here and now.

I was sober, temperate in my decisions and actions. I was in Manila. I felt I was with my comrades. They were not my enemies. I had no enemies. I even released a number of hostages. I asked for food for the hostages.

When it was becoming clear that I would not get what I demanded, I felt betrayed. I felt no one understood me. I felt nothing inside me. I had nothing anymore. I risked everything for this day. Everything in me. I lost.

"And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." - Matthew 25:30

Yours,

Ex-policeman, a servant

Introducing Noviolence as a concept

2010-07-30T16:53:00.000-07:00

I was in Barcelona, Spain for a break. But peacework and networking would not take a break with me.

With my scant Spanish, El Consell de la Joventut de Barcelona (CJB) introduced me to this concept of noviolence during its video presentation of its recent activity involving the youth. It presents, in my understanding, a concept that does not consist of two words, but one. Essentially, it refers to absence of violence in the pursuit of meaningful lives and social change.

What is the significance of this concept to the peace and conflict studies?

I would argue that this concept of noviolence is useful in framing the problematique of a prolonged and protracted conflict. In communities that have been in conflicts for several generations such as in Mindanao (Philippines), Darfur (Sudan), Kurds (Turkey), etc., peace is so abstract and non-sensible. It does not help motivate many people there to seek peace because they have never experienced peace. What makes sense to the victims and survivors of prolonged conflicts is the absence of violence or noviolence in their lives. That´s what they long for. That is their desired change.

Noviolence is not only useful in theoretical and conceptual references, but also for practical purposes. As the precedent, the nonviolence, on one hand, is a popular concept, tool and movement for people who reject violence as a means for social change. Noviolence, on the other hand, is an alternative to peace when the concept of peace does not make sense to the victims and survivors of prolonged conflicts.

If we, as peacebuilders, would like to see grassroot and community-driven peacebuilding efforts in areas with long history of conflicts, the concept of noviolence will be useful to frame our understanding of our mission towards peace and conflict transformation.

Human Rights and Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines: A Note on the Arroyo Government (2001-2007)

2010-07-09T07:12:00.000-07:00

July 2007 is an eventful month for human rights in the Philippines under the Arroyo government. First, after a great deal of debate and delay, an anti-terrorism law or officially known as Human Security Act (Republic Act 9372) has finally been passed. Critics of the new law say that it is subject to the abuse of the government and therefore would lead to more human rights violations. The government, on the other hand, believes that the new law would strengthen the institutions like the courts and police in protecting the human rights of the citizens against terror. Second, just a day after the passage of the Human Security Act into law, a two-day National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances: Searching for Solutions was held under the initiative of the Supreme Court and was participated in by stakeholders and duty-bearers of human rights. Third, a concurrent two-day summit of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) on human rights to look into the creation of a regional human rights commission was also held in Manila. With these events, human rights and security have again taken center stage among the concerns and considerations for our path and vision of the common future of the country, region, and even of the world. Fourth, the State of the Nation Address (SONA) of the president merely mentioned sparingly the state of human rights especially extrajudicial killings. She just urged the Congress to enact laws, but was short of commanding the military and police to stop the killings and other human rights violations.

It would be noted that 48 member-states of the United Nations (UN) including the Philippines ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. In his book, International Standards and Agreements on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, Reynaldo Ty (1989) defines a declaration as “a formal statement which refers to the common standard of achievement” (p. 3). Being a declaration, it is not legally binding but it sets a common reference to human rights among the signatories and, in fact, has gained, over time, international acceptance and status as standards against which either compliance or violation of the provisions in the declaration is monitored.

Signatories of the declaration recognize that these standards impose obligations, duties and commitments on them to comply and enforce in their respective territorial state. Donnely (2003), the author of In Defense of the Universal Declaration Model, points out that the states have become the “new exclusive instrument for implementing internationally recognized human rights” (p. 40). In other words, the practice of human rights heavily relies on the political, economic, and cultural dynamics of a certain state. This monism follows the generally accepted principle that the enforcement of human rights is in the hands of the states (Ty, 1989).

Although in principle the declaration is not legally binding, the Philippine state through the doctrine of incorporation has adopted the declaration as part of the law of the land (Ty, 1989). The Philippine Constitution of 1987 expressly states this incorporation in Article II, Section 2; “The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.”

Furthermore, being a signatory of the declaration makes its adoption and incorporation into the national laws more compelling and valid. However, being a signatory does not necessarily guarantee and translate into full compliance and enforcement. Thus, can being a signatory to the declaration make a difference in the protection and respect of human rights?

In his article, Do International Human Rights Treaties Improve Respect for Human Rights, Neumayer (2005) finds out that “the beneficial effect of ratification of human rights treaties is typically conditional on the extent of democracy and the strength of civil society groups as measured by participation in non-government organizations (NGOs) with international linkages”(p. 926). He concluded that the ratification might not have any effect or might even lead to further human rights violations without democratic spaces and presence of strong civil society.

This paper looks at the case of the present Philippine government, as a signatory to the declaration, and how it performs in the field of human rights particularly with regard to the spate of extrajudicial killings by revisiting the reports of Melo commission and UN-designated Special Rapporteur, Philip Alston, on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. Then, the paper proceeds with a discussion on the effect of ratifying an internationally-accepted declaration on the Philippine government in the hope of an end to the killings.

Extrajudicial killings under the Arroyo government

The Philippine government recently has been under intense local and international criticisms for the unabated extrajudicial killings of mostly activists and journalists since Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo ascended to power in 2001. On its 1983 report about Political Killings by Governments, Amnesty International (AI), an international organization that works for the protection of human rights, defines extrajudicial killings as those killings “committed outside the judicial process and in violation of national laws and international standards forbidding the arbitrary deprivation of life” (pp. 5-6). It would be recalled that only in June 2006 that the Philippines repealed its death penalty law. Therefore prior to June 2006, the Philippine government had judicial killings sanctioned by the death penalty law of the state. The extrajudicial killings referred to by AI are also alternatively called political killings because they are deliberate and directed to neutralize or silence opposition members. To substantiate its allegation on the rising extrajudicial killings, AI (2006) documented 51 extrajudicial killings in the Philippines for the first six months of 2006 and 66 killings in the whole of 2005. It estimated that for the whole year of 2006, the numbers of killings ranged from at least 61 to 96 incidents. This disturbing high number of killings in 2006 could be attributed to the Arroyo government’s February 16, 2006 -declaration of an all-out war against the New People’s Army (NPA), the armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines. Moreover, on February 22, 2007, a news report from the online edition of The Independent, a newspaper in United Kingdom, revealed that according to a local human rights group, Karapatan, at least 832 people were either killed or declared missing since Arroyo assumed the presidency in 2001. In the weekly Philippine Daily Inquirer’s (PDI) Talk of the Town for July 22, 2007, it quoted Karapatan’s last count of extrajudicial killings which is currently pegged at 863 deaths. These killings captured headlines and international attention in 2005 and 2006 when successive and patterned killings and disappearances of unarmed activists and non-combatants known to be critical of the Arroyo government were reported.

The same 1983 AI report on political killings by government, drawing from the 1982 International Conference on Extrajudicial Executions in the Netherlands, identified the “preconditions” or indicators of political killings and other human rights violations by governments. These possible preconditions are “the imposition of a state of emergency, martial law, or other states of exception; the occurrence of other human rights violations such as irregular arrests and detentions, ‘disappearances’ and torture; the identification of certain groups as ‘enemies;’ claims of ‘encounters’ with armed groups resulting in deaths” (p. 103). Prophetic as the report might be, these preconditions or indicators of the killings existed in 2006.

Incidentally, these extrajudicial killings occurred when the Arroyo government was seriously challenged by a broad coalition of anti-government forces which included some military personnel, recently-resigned cabinet secretaries, former president, sitting senate president, a number of Catholic bishops, and the influential Makati Business Club over the wiretapped conversation of Arroyo and a Commission on Election (COMELEC) commissioner named Garcillano at the height of counting of votes in the 2004 presidential election. The taped conversation which is now known as “Hello Garci” revealed the alleged large-scale manipulation of votes in certain parts of Mindanao in favor of Arroyo. As a result, the Arroyo government was hounded by a legitimacy issue which it avoided to confront and address in both legal and informal processes such as an impeachment proceeding and interviews. This unresolved charge of cheating in the election contributed to its plummeting popularity. In the Social Weather Station’s (SWS) survey of Arroyo’s net satisfaction ratings, double-digit negative net ratings were registered in the whole two years of 2005 and 2006 with negative 33 as the lowest ever satisfaction rating given to a president in the post-Marcos era. In fact, only Arroyo has posted negative ratings in the SWS survey among the presidents, from Aquino to Arroyo. These negative ratings could be the most telling proof of the unpopularity and dissatisfaction of the people on the president.

Previous governments, from Aquino to Estrada, also had a history of extrajudicial killing or “salvaging” during their terms. Muyot (1992) talked about the human rights in the Philippines during the Corazon Aquino government (1986-1992) which was responsible for the restoration of democratic structures after the fall of the authoritarian regime by Marcos. Yet there were 167 cases of salvaging as reported by the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP) during the entire Aquino’s term. In the first year of Fidel Ramos government (1992-1998) with which victory was questioned while having the smallest plurality of votes in the Philippine electoral history, the 1993 human rights report of the Philippine Human Rights Information Center (PhilRights) documented 61 salvaging cases. Ramos, a military man and former chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), was endorsed by Aquino, who had experienced nine coup attempts in her term, to succeed her. In 1998, Joseph Estrada was popularly elected by 11 million Filippinos, more than double of his closest rival. On the Estrada government’s last year before EDSA Dos, the PhilRights (2001), citing report from TFDP, pointed to the “extrajudicial killings in the form of salvaging continued to haunt the populace with 8 identified cases of salvaging, all without reports of arrests” (p. 39). Then, EDSA Dos, another people power revolution that ousted Estrada from office due to alleged massive corruption and unexplained wealth, happened where Arroyo as the vice-president of Estrada assumed office in 2001.

There seems to be a relationship between legitimacy and human rights record. Donnely (2003) concedes that “political legitimacy is increasingly judged by and expressed in terms of internationally-recognized human rights” (p. 23). Although the legitimacy issue of Arroyo government stems from its alleged cheating in the 2004 election, the extrajudicial killings and other acts inimical to human rights further erode and put under question its political legitimacy to govern in the eyes of both national and international constituencies. In the report of AI (1983), Political Killings by Governments, most governments that committed these killings were struggling and having problems with legitimacy issues in their own countries.

Dark days that were 2006

In its effort to hold on to power despite its growing unpopularity and legitimacy issue as narrated in the running account by the online PDI, the Arroyo government issued controversial executive and administrative orders, and proclamations which were later found by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. One of which is Proclamation No. 1017 which put the whole country into a state of emergency by which the AFP was mandated to suppress lawless violence. This proclamation was issued in February 2006 after the Arroyo government had allegedly discovered the collusion among elements of the broad spectrum of the political actors – from extreme left (communists) to extreme right (disgruntled soldiers) and in between a sector of civil society and middle ground forces – to topple the government. With Proclamation No. 1017, the Arroyo government undertook actions which further eroded its human rights record down the sink. It raided and closed down one national newspaper, issued a prescribed guideline and standard for media practitioners in reporting the news, had the six leftist party-list representatives arrested without preliminary investigation on the charge of rebellion, and arrested a former cabinet secretary and her group for organizing a public assembly without a permit. It was at this time when the government banned protests and demonstrations and in the process, undermining the country’s democratic values of free speech and citizens’ right to assembly and express their sentiments and grievances. Then, the killings and disappearances started to be reported in the news. Many people likened those dark days and the present circumstances similar to the Marcos dictatorial years. The impression sent to the people by these blatant violations of human rights particularly the killings and disappearances is that there is a price to be paid for being vigilant and assertive of rights.

The victims as “enemies of the state” (Melo Commission report)

To denounce this growing impression, the Arroyo government, as posted on its website, officially created an independent commission under Administrative Order (AO) 157 on August 21, 2006 to investigate these extrajudicial killings. A retired justice of the Supreme Court, Jose Melo, headed the commission with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) director, chief state prosecutor, an academician from University of the Philippines, a lawyer, and a Catholic bishop as members. Many critics and skeptics of the Melo commission pointed out that the commission would find itself in a bind because all members of the commission were handpicked by the government which is charged of masterminding these killings. Citing the impartiality, credibility and effectiveness problems the commission needs to address to be able to perform its mandate, families of the victims and even the survivors decided to boycott the proceedings.

For a time, the Melo commission report was unavailable to the public. The government which received the report and was keeping it had said that the report was incomplete and unfinished to be released to the public. However, after strong public pressure, the government finally released the report to the media.

The investigation revealed that the victims of these killings who were mostly activists and journalists were often tagged as “enemies of the state” by the elements of the military. There was no hard evidence though directly implicating the military establishment having an official policy sanctioning the extrajudicial killings. However, it was found out that there were some rogue officers in the military who endorsed these killings.

The commission, on its official report as posted on the website, reminded the government that “in a democratic and civilized state such as ours, one must uphold and observe the rule of law, the principles of justice, and the system and rules of how it is dispensed – from investigation to arrest, to inquest, and to trial” (p. 2). In other words, extrajudicial killings are not to be sanctioned and tolerated. The commission also clarified the concept of command responsibility. The concept does not only apply to the acts authorized and known by the superiors, rather it also includes the instances when the superior fails to stop and investigate the acts committed by his/her subordinates.

In short, the Melo commission acknowledged the increasing number of the killings of people who were classified to be “enemies of the state” and the culpability of some rogue elements in the military who perpetrated and sanctioned these killings.

“Order of Battle” against groups and individuals (Alston report)

The spate of extrajudicial killings in the Philippines has raised alarm and concern in the international community including the UN, European Union, United States, and Japan. At the invitation of the Arroyo government, Philip Alston, a Special Rapporteur of the UN on extrajudicial killings, visited the Philippines and conducted his own investigation from February 12-21, 2007. On his preliminary note for the UN General Assembly-Human Rights Council on March 22, 2007 which is available on the internet, Alston acknowledged a number of “institutional response at the national level,” such as the creation of Melo commission, Task Force Usig, special courts tasked to hear and try cases of extrajudicial killings, Presidential Human Rights Committee as distinct from the Commission on Human Rights (CHR), and the augmentation of fund of the CHR to better handle cases of the killings.

Similar to the Melo report, Alston also characterized the killings as product of tagging the victims as enemies of the state. He also mentioned about a leaked copy of a document signed by senior military and police officials describing the “order of battle” drawn by the AFP against groups and individuals who were to be neutralized.

Moreover, Alston pointed out why the responses made by the Arroyo government to mitigate these human rights violations were ineffective, and sometimes of little use because of the accountability problem which could have checked the abuses of authorities. For example, the executive branch of the government limited the performance of the legislative branch in its oversight function in the execution of laws by the military by requiring those invited to the legislative inquiry to ask permission from the president through the executive secretary. And normally, permission is not granted except for budget hearings. Likewise stated on Alston’s preliminary note, another example is that there seems to be “a passivity, bordering on an abdication of responsibility, which affects the way in which key institutions and actors approach their responsibilities in relation to such human rights concerns” (p. 5).

Among his recommendations to address these killings and halt the further killings of activists are the termination of military officers from issuing public statements that relate groups or individuals to the armed struggle waged by the Communist Party of the Philippines – New People’s Army (CPP-NPA), restoration and respect of the oversight function of the Congress, and the call for the Supreme Court to make use of its “constitutional powers over the practice of law” to remind the prosecutors of their duty to the public to respect and protect human rights and to speed up the investigations and cases involving the killings. The last recommendation was realized when a summit on extrajudicial killings was conducted under the initiative of the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

As a signatory to the UDHR, the Philippines has accepted the obligations, duties and commitments that the declaration entails. States that ratified it and are strong in respecting human rights and other international organizations that are concerned with human rights have put pressure on the Philippine government to abide by the principles of the declaration which are fundamental to living as human beings. Signatories or parties to an agreement “generally aspire to comply in the spirit of ‘pacta sunt servanda’ (agreements are to be kept and honored)” (Neumayer, 2005, p. 928). When there are grave human rights violations anywhere in the world, “the community for protecting human rights seems to be becoming the society of states” (Donnely, 2003, p. 41). In this so-called society of states, there are states more than equal than the others. In short, among the sovereign states, the powerful ones have leverage over the weaker ones in terms of trade, aid, labor migration, investment, and among other things. Donnely (2003) noted that the international immunity that sovereign states used to enjoy has been undermined by unrelenting and strong pressures and demands from the powerful states over the weaker ones.

Examples of these pressures and demands from the powerful states are the actions of the United States (US), European Union (EU), and Japan. According to the official website of the United States Senate, its Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines: Strategies to End the Violence on March 14, 2007. The EU Ambassador to Manila, Alistair MacDonald, made a comment that the Arroyo government is “not doing enough on killings amid outcry” after an EU assessment team finished its mission to look how EU could help solve the killings, as quoted in the Channel News Asia website on June 30, 2007. The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), on its website on January 16, 2007, lauded the appeal of a group of 14 Japanese non-government organizations (NGOs) to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to act more on the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines than just speaking about the killings with the Arroyo government when the Prime Minister visited the Philippines. Some of the influential international organizations that raised concerns about the killings in the Philippines are the AI, New York-based Human Rights Watch, and AHRC. As fellow signatories, powerful EU countries, US, and Japan continuously put pressure on the Arroyo government that led to the creation of Melo commission and invitation of UN Special Rapporteur by the Arroyo government to look into and shed light to these killings.

These pressures were borne out of the lobbies and advocacy campaigns of the civil society groups with effective networks globally which brought the extrajudicial killings to the attention of the international community. Neumayer (2005) earlier indicated that the positive impact of human rights treaties depends on the kind of democracy and participation and effectiveness of civil society with international linkages. Philippine democracy as measured in terms of press freedom and independence of judiciary is vibrant, particularly in the judiciary where policies of the Arroyo government that hampered and infringed human rights were found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Ferrer (1997), in the book Civil Society Making Civil Society, describes the Philippines “as a strong civil society type” because of the participation of NGOs in the significant part of the country’s history like the two EDSA revolutions (p. 1). The two criteria cited by Neumayer, extent of democracy and strong and active civil society, are both present and dynamic in the Philippines. Clearly, these positive signs give hope for an end to the killings.

Aside from these factors, the declaration of the Arroyo government, as posted on its website, that its last three years in power will be for “legacy-building” phase is welcome and good news for human rights advocates. Certainly, the government does not want to be remembered for the human rights violations and extrajudicial killings. As the president said in the 2007 SONA taken from the inquirer’s website, “We must wipe this stain from our democratic record.” Vulnerably, the people will have to believe and take those words from the president who has the power to stop the extrajudicial killings and, at the same time, has a recent history of taking back her own words. God bless the Philippines!

Message for the first graduation of UN-mandated UPEACE in Asia (2008)

2010-07-04T15:53:00.000-07:00

Good evening to all of you.

In Naga Pi Chaung Village in Delta region, the hardest-hit area in Myanmar by Cyclone Nargis in May 2008 and believed to be an underserved area, I went there with a team from UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) for my internship. We asked a group of villagers including the village chief about the village’s pressing needs. The village chief responded quickly and identified fishing nets, boats and agricultural inputs and tools as their pressing needs. The villagers agreed to this assessment. Of course, we took note of those needs.

Then, we asked the women present in the meeting the same question. One woman, apparently a mother, replied, “education.” Teary-eyed, she continued that children in the village have stopped going to school because they have no school to go to (their solitary school was flattened by the cyclone), no teacher, and no school supplies. Afterwards, there was silence in the meeting. (I know Indai, our professor in gender course, would be happy to hear this story.)

Education! Why not?

Amidst the shortage or lack of basic necessities in the village such as water, shelter (most of them live in a makeshift shelter wrapped around by blue and white tarpaulins as walls and roof), food, clothes, one woman stressed the need for education in the village.

I believe that three institutions would agree to the woman’s answer, education. These are the institutions that invest, develop, advance and facilitate education for the global village.

Nippon Foundation has various projects in education including scholarships. One of which is this program. Thank you Nippon Foundation for believing in education as a tool for social change, development and empowerment. Arigato!

The other institution is University for Peace, particularly our Dept. of Peace and Conflict Studies. This small university in Costa Rica is a giant in the field of peace and conflict studies. We, students, are privileged to receive trainings from its topnotch professors who are experts in their own fields. Its multicultural environment adds to the joy and struggles of our learning. It is truly a global village. Gracias UPeace. Pura Vida!

One more institution worthy as the first, Ateneo de Manila University which is going to celebrate its 150th years of great service through education to Filipinos and foreigners. It has formed and produced distinguished graduates. And we are pleased to be part of the roster of graduates of this institution. Thank you Ateneo. One big fight!

Oh, we also had our 3-week course in La Salle. Yes, you hear me right. It is our rival, La Salle. But it was Universidad de la Salle in San Jose, Costa Rica for our foundation course. Well, it is a long story.

Before the drafting of this message, I have asked my classmates if they have anything that they would like to be part of this message. One classmate emailed me. She wrote, “We are trees planted by the hands that have been working for peace.” You probably know whose hands she is referring to.

But these trees started from seeds. I have seen how the seeds were provided with the best soil, care, and nurturing environment. And now the trees have grown and ready to bear fruits.

Since seeds come from a source, I would like to acknowledge our sources, our mothers. Like the mother in Naga Pi Chaung Village, our mothers, I imagine, would also assert the need for education. We all learned first from our mothers – the best education in the world. Thank you, Ma.

And thank you for that woman in the village who reminded me of what I am holding now, what I’m thinking, feeling, speaking, dreaming – all products of the best education we just received.

I am confident that this education will find its way and expression in whatever career and mission we undertake to contribute to peacebuilding.

And another classmate whispered to me last night. He wanted to include this message here. As the first batch of the Dual-Campus program, we complained a lot for 19 months. (Balazs, the willing listener of our complaints, knows this). We complained about accommodation, course schedules, late information, coordination between Costa Rica and Manila, and many other things. We struggled too. We struggled with our deadlines, with English in different Asian and other accents, Spanish, the languages in our internship assignments (Bahasa Indonesia). Through these complaints and struggles, we have learned the language of friendship. We shared this friendship in MyPlace, in Bellarmine Building, in cafeterias, in Council room. We celebrated this friendship through birthdays, weekend and course break trips out of town and out of the country. And this friendship will tie us wherever we will be. We may be in the remotest village in Myanmar, conflict-torn areas in Africa or Afganistan, an air-conditioned room in Tokyo, classroom in Indonesia, South Korea or Japan; we will always be reminded that 27 others out there somewhere that peace is not always about the opposite of conflict, it is a way to live.

I remember Wolfgang who told us that whatever we do, say, think, feel, dream, literally whatever, an energy is released in the world that can make a difference. I once emailed a classmate about this, and I will say it to you again (although I usually don’t say words twice, my apology to that classmate), because of our education, of what we went through, of our unbelievable journey together, of what we believe in, we now all are a difference to this world. I can feel that overflowing energy in this room, share this. Bring this to the villages, to your home countries, to your friends, your families, to whomever we meet. Our energies together and of those we can influence can be a difference, can bring about change, can challenge and transform the structures that restrict others, can respond to human needs including those of the woman in Naga Pi Chaung Village in Myanmar. We can count on the three institutions to be with us. Besides, we have each other.

If there’s one thing I learned from this 19-month program, it is that I am responsible for my future, a shared future with you, with others. Let us believe then in the future that we can build, together, here.

Thank you, gracias, Dios mabalos!

Structural peacebuilding begins with us, here

2010-07-01T16:16:00.000-07:00

This presents a process of transforming unjust and unequal structures that cause violence to become peaceful structures. This process is known as structural peacebuilding.

To demonstrate this process of structural peacebuilding, this follows two narratives. The first one is on the Sumilao farmers who conducted a hunger strike to dramatize their plight and struggle against landlessness. The second narrative is on the People Power revolution in 1986 which toppled a dictator. Both narratives exemplify the alteration of systemic violence such as economic exploitation, landlessness, and political oppression to a more equitable resource sharing and broadening of democratic space. They also show the reconfiguration of social structure which embeds the durable hierarchical relationships among groups (e.g. landowners, farmers, state) in a social system.

What make a violent social structure are these hierarchical relationships and vertical inequalities that impede the satisfaction of basic human needs. Unless these kinds of exploitative relationships and inequalities are eradicated, a utopic system like structural peace will not arise. The main difference between structural peacebuilding and structural peace is that the former is a means while the latter
is an end.

While the hierarchical relationships among groups are enduring and strongly embedded in a social system, structural peacebuilding needs to create social strain, conflict, and disequilibrium among groups to make the relationships more horizontal. It entails an action that is a purposive and cognitive behavior and tasks. The first task is networking which links to outside of the oppressive structure. The second one is mobilization which is characterized by a collective action to challenge the unjust and unequal relationships and social arrangement. The third task is political education which can adopt Freire’s conscientization.

The application of psychological elements to structural peacebuilding include a sense of sacrifice and shared spirituality, practical tactics in facing the enemy, and leadership roles. Tangentially, this lays out the future research direction of structural peacebuilding and how psychology can contribute to that.

Both narratives have illustrated the struggle against structural violence of hierarchical relationships between the landowner and farmers and structural violence under authoritarian regime.

What the Sumilao farmers and People’s Power in the Philippines showed are models of structural peacebuilding. It demonstrated that structural peacebuilding through active nonviolence is possible in the midst of frustrations, disappointments and other options to pursue. Indeed there is a point and small victory in the struggle against structural violence. The Tiananmen Square in China, pro-democracy protest in Myanmar in 2007, Tibet demonstrations in 2008, Bangkok's standoffs in 2009 and 2010 are testimonies and cases that the tough work for structural peacebuilding in various contexts continues. The narratives have inspired me to engage in peacebuilding.

This pursuit, admittedly, is daunting. Would you join me? We can not simply be audience watching the events unfold. We have to take part. Come!

Idealism vs. realism: Reflection on diplomacy

2010-06-29T15:46:00.001-07:00

The struggle between idealism and realism is highlighted in decision-making. Decision-makers are often entangled in the clash between the two schools of thought and approaches. When I decided to skip my Filipino subject, I wanted to take other courses that were worthwhile, in my mind, than Filipino subject. At that time, I saw no point in studying a language I had already learned. My ideal of studies then was to continue discovering, learning and enriching one’s knowledge and not restudying and relearning what one had already learned and known. I was idealistic about the direction and goals of my academic life. However, the reality of having structures and procedures made me grounded on the rigors and practices of formal and standardized education I was taking at that time.

Diplomats are no exception to experience this kind of struggle. It is even much more difficult, I suppose, when important decisions and complex situations in international relations and foreign policies are at hand.

In a lecture, Poland’s Ambassador to Costa Rica, Andrzej Braiter, mentioned about being once an idealist when he was still young. In his experience as a diplomat, he honestly told us that he learned the tricks, good and bad (dirty), of diplomacy. Unassuming, he metaphorically narrated how he banged his head during the exercise of his duty. For me, the banging of head manifests a clash or tension of the two approaches – realism and idealism.

In this short paper, I will attempt to explore the configuration of idealism and realism in the two small case studies cited here. One is about the resignation of a US Foreign Service officer in protest of the war in Iraq. The other one is about the long and unending peace negotiation between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and National Democratic Front (NDF) – Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP). I will argue that diplomacy is not a prescriptive guideline or straight jacket on negotiation or decision-making in pursuit of peace or conflict resolution, rather it is a pursuit of self-interest of one party or side depending on whose side one wants to look at. Regardless of the outcome of negotiation or decision, the self-interests of negotiating parties blur the distinction between realism and idealism as both are operative. Nonetheless, both parties claim to be grounded on either of the two.

Diplomacy is “a tool of foreign policy that involves representation, bargaining, negotiation, and other peaceful means” (Miller, 2005, p. 32). I will underscore the negotiation aspect since both case studies involve negotiation in one way or another. The first case is a negotiation with oneself while the second case involves negotiation between two parties. The assumption is that negotiation is informed by the two schools of thought, realism and idealism. The underlying structural core of the negotiation is the self-interest driving itself to the fore. I will show how this self-interest is manifested in the outcome of the negotiations.

Fisher and Ury (cited in Barash 2000, p. 71), in their popular book Getting to YES, defines negotiation as “basic means of getting what you want from others. It is back-and-forth communication designed to reach an agreement when you and the other side have some interests that are shared and others that are opposed.” What if a negotiator is not getting what s/he really wants? I could think of two scenarios; first, one could back out and resign, and second, one could delay the negotiation while maintaining its original position. The two scenarios are my examples here.

Irreconcilable ideals and work requirements

In his book released in 2006, Diplomacy Lessons: Realism for an Unloved Superpower, John Brady Kiesling presented his ideas, thoughts and experiences on diplomacy based on his 20 years in the foreign service which is, for him, an “honorable career and a subtle and difficult art.”[1] His resignation from the lucrative service and career in 2003 showed his resolve of practicing idealism in foreign service. After the 9/11 terror attack in 2001, he became disenchanted with the realist foreign policies by his government. Until the war in Iraq pushed him to resign in 2003 for irreconcilable ideals and demands for work as part of diplomatic service.

Some viewed his resignation as an act of patriotism for standing up on his principle. He is an idealist in many respect. According to him, “realism has been turned into an ugly word in foreign affairs, a synonym for selfishness and indifference to human suffering.”[2] For him, realism which is seen as pessimistic and amoral does not go along with idealism which exudes optimism and morality.

I agree with him that the war in Iraq has a moral dimension. It is extremely difficult for an idealist like Kiesling to see the war amorally. He chose to end the struggle between keeping an honorable career and keeping an honor for him by liberating himself in the “difficult art” of diplomacy. He could not work on it anymore. He lost his faith in the foreign policies by his government. Deceptively cloaked in a moral and idealist standpoint, his decision to resign is a self-interested move to advocate peace and challenge and salvage the image of the US as warmongering country from the eyes of the local and global public. It is still his self-interest that prevails in his decision to resign. He may be out from the foreign service, he is never out of the loop of negotiation for the peace or anti-war movement and advocacy for changes in US diplomacy.

Negotiating with Rebels

The peace negotiation between CPP-NPA and the GRP began informally in 1986 during the time of President Cory Aquino (1986-1992).[3] It had expectedly more than its share of ups and downs. Ceasefires were often called to give way to formal peace talks and failed. However, the significant steps towards attaining peace were taken during President Fidel Ramos (1992-1998) when he decriminalized the CPP-NPA through the Anti-Subversion Law in his first year in office.

Several significant agreements were signed between the two parties. These were the 1992 Hague Joint Declaration which opened the formal peace talks, the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) in 1995 which gave safety passes for those people involved in the formal peace talks, and the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) in 1998.

The CPP-NPA owns the record of being the longest running insurgency in Asia which started in 1969. Learning from the previous failed peace talks, the CPP-NPA asked for a third-party facilitator in which the Dutch government took the role as facilitator from 1992 to 2001. The Royal Norwegian government also stepped and helped in the peace talks as third-party facilitator.[4] In 2003, the CPP-NPA demanded to be delisted from the US and European Union (EU) list of terrorist organizations before formal peace talks could commence again.[5] The GRP did not act on the demand of the CPP-NPA.

The peace talks remain suspended as of this writing. Both parties have refused to buck down on its original position, that is to defend their interests driven by the two differing approaches – realism and idealism. The GRP seems to be the realist here with its self-interested decision to initiate peace talks to look good to the public and international community while the CPP-NPA is motivated by the idealism of Marxist-Maoist thought. Either self-interest of both parties helps in the emerging of long lasting peace which still remains as elusive as an Olympic gold for the Philippines.

Conclusion

The two small case studies have presented the possible tactical stages of the diplomacy with a view on the realism and idealism that engage the mind and heart of a negotiator or diplomat. The differing approaches to diplomacy and negotiation do not necessarily dichotomize between realism and idealism. They are associated with self-interests that any parties are espousing and pushing to get from the negotiation or decision. However noble and best-intentioned the self-interest is, the realist and idealist in every one of us are both operative in the pursuit of self-interest.

Although I would like to believe that I am an idealist in negotiation and decision-making, I would remain grounded on the reality where I am. From there, I will work on my self-interest.

References

Fisher, R & Ury, W. (2000). Getting to YES. In D. Barash (Ed.), Approaches to Peace.

(pp. 70-76). New York: Oxford University Press.

Miller, Christopher. (2005). A Glossary of Terms and Concepts in Peace and Conflict Studies. Mary King (Ed.). Costa Rica: University for Peace.

[1] See http://www.bradykiesling.com/thebook.htm#Chapter%20I for the review, excerpts and summary of the book by John Brady Kiesling (2006).

[2] Ibid

[3] Visit http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/engaging-groups/facilitating-dialogue-philippines.php for an insider’s story of negotiation from the point of view of Rene Sarmiento, a member government panel in the peace talks.

[4] Ibid

[5] See http://www.gov.ph/news/default.asp?i=2604 for the news on the suspension of peace talks from the GRP perspective.

Child rights' activism: Prospects on advocacy

2010-06-27T07:04:00.000-07:00

Child labor is a long standing social issue and ill in society. A child is supposed to be protected, cared for, schooled and loved. However, child labor denies a child of love, schooling, care, and protection. The issue appeals to the natural empathy to children whom all of us could relate to as we were once a child. It elicits repugnance, outrage and conviction that child labor is wrong. It is through these strong feelings against child labor that I am going to talk about it. These strong feelings and conviction will pave the way for any activism. Especially, I will present child labor as violation of human rights of a child to education. The activism is not just to eliminate child labor. It is also about providing education, vocational training, and support to former child laborers.

All over the world, there are about 218 million children engaged in child labor. They could be found across the globe, from industrialized to non-industrialized countries. Majority of these children work in agriculture. Many are believed to be working in hazardous conditions. Some are in prostitution and pornography, in armed conflict as child soldiers, and in a form of slavery and worst forms of child labor. In short, they are out of school and working elsewhere instead of being in school.

Generally, I would like to explore the different issues and prospects for human rights activism on child labor. Also, I will look at one NGO in India, the Bandhua Mukti Morcha (BMM) or Bonded Labor Liberation Front (BLLF), and its activism against child labor to show the role of civil society groups in human rights protection and promotion.

As the basis for activism, the 1989 Convention on the Rights of a Child (CRC), the first legally-binding convention on child’s rights, is able to codify the various conventions that dealt with the rights of a child. In the status report of major treaties on human rights as of June 2004 by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), the CRC is the most ratified treaty. The codification and ratification of CRC have facilitated the international and local activism for the rights of a child, particularly against child labor.

Article 32 of the CRC explicitly states that “States Parties recognize the right of the child to be protected from economic exploitation and from performing any work that is likely to be hazardous or to interfere with the child’s education, or to be harmful to the child’s health or physical, mental, spiritual, moral or social development.” Clearly, it protects a child from economic exploitation of anyone including parents. It also supports Article 28 which is about the right to education of a child and making primary education compulsory and free to all.

To proceed, definition of terms should be set to specify the meaning of key terms used in this essay. However, this is already an issue that I would like to discuss.

Who is a child?

Conventions tackling child labor had set varying age range referring to a child or minimum age for a child to work in a certain industry and sector, not until 1989 when the (CRC) established the age range of a child at under the age of 18. Yet Article 1 of CRC also provides a caveat that if a law stipulates earlier than 18 years of age for a child, then it is that law which prevails. I think the purpose of CRC for having set the age at under 18 is to set the minimum standard. Anything earlier is seen as better for the protection of a child against child labor.

Child labor vs. child work

The contentious distinction between child labor and child work lies in the heart of the problem of child labor. Some cultures based on agriculture recognize the vital contribution of their children in economic activities which are seen as family affairs. Parents bring their children of school age to work and help them in their income-generating activities. For some this is not child labor. For some, it is.

To help shed light on this contention, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) distinguishes child work from child labor.

Child work: Children’s participation in economic activity – that does not negatively affect their health and development or interfere with education, can be positive. Work that does not interfere with education (light work) is permitted from the age of 12 years under the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention 138. Child labour: This is more narrowly defined and refers to children working in contravention of the above standards. This means all children below 12 years of age working in any economic activities, those aged 12 to 14 years engaged in harmful work, and all children engaged in the worst forms of child labour.

I think that the key questions here to be asked that can help make the distinction are, does the activity of a child “negatively affect his/her health and development or interfere with education?” Another question is, how young is a child who engages in certain work? The term light work has little help in this case. Edmonds (2007) indicates that in general, “the minimum age of employment is the minimum age of completion of compulsory schooling or at least 15 years old, although 14 can be consistent with the convention in very poor countries” (p.9).

However, further questions beg to be answered on this issue. Up to what extent should the negative effect be on a child’s health and development? This depends on the environment and what the child does when s/he is not at work (Ibid, 2007, p.9-10). Similar question on the degree can also be asked as to the interference with a child’s education. Like for instance, a hard work that takes one day off weekly from a child’s school days does not dramatically and negatively affect the child’s school performance. So this is one of the issues that the activism on child labor has to confront with.

Working conditions

Another issue that is faced by activists for the abolition of child labor is the kind of conditions in which the child works. What measure should be used to determine the harm and hazards which are caused by the working conditions? Edmonds (2007) deals with these controversies “about whether the types of activities that children typically participate in are harmful or beneficial to children and others” (p.7). Again, it depends on what can be considered harmful to a child and on the other activities that a child does outside of work. As a child, s/he is very vulnerable to any conditions that can cause hazards or harm. Will it change the situation if a child is working in a very good condition with decent pay? Will it still be child labor? These are the issues the surround the conditions in which a child works.

Bonded Labor

This is the worst form of child labor. In UNICEF’s definition, “these involve children being enslaved, forcibly recruited, prostituted, trafficked, forced into illegal activities and exposed to hazardous work.” This happens when parents bring a child to an employer and ask for an advanced payment for the future work that a child will do for the employer.

There is a non-government organization (NGO) in India that advocates against bonded labor. It is called Bandhua Mukti Morcha (BMM) or Bonded Labor Liberation Front (BLLF). This NGO is instrumental in rescuing 76,000 bonded laborers including child laborers from their harsh working conditions and grip of their employers. The organization is not just concerned of taking out these children from bonded labor, but it also provides rehabilitation and primary education for rescued children. It operates 7 elementary schools for these children.

One of the success stories conducted by BMM is the creation of Rugmark. It is a foundation that promotes child labor free carpets from India and ensures the buyers that the laborers have been paid minimum wage (Chowdhry and Beeman, 2001, p.169). An alliance of Indian NGO, German Terre des Hommes, and church-related groups such as the Protestant’s Bread for the World and Catholic’s Misereor made possible the campaign and mobilization of groups for the promotion of Rugmark in the international market (Ibid, 2001, p.168). The availability of an alternative product with advocacy and activism against child labor causes consumers to be aware of the situation, aside from the fact that the sales will help ultimately the cause against child labor.

Prospects of and suggestions for activism against child labor

If there is one cause that is easy to promote and for people to relate to, child labor has the best prospects of being acceptable across the broad spectrum of people. It helps in the promotion of the human rights that the basis for activism, the CRC, is the most ratified convention in the history of human rights. It is also legally-binding for the signatory-states. Another thing going for the cause is that the alternative of child labor is highly valued in various cultures – education.

Some practical suggestions that can strengthen the campaign against child labor are the implementation of compulsory basic and primary education for children, boycotting those products believed to be made by child laborers and companies that hire child laborers, and reminding the governments of their commitment and compliance to the CRC.

Conclusion

Despite the issues that need to be cleared on child labor, the prospects of activism for its abolition are bright. What is clear though is that child labor is outlawed and a violation of human rights. That is why many NGOs are working for the abolition of child labor and they are making progress on their fronts like the BMM.

Activism against child labor is not just about elimination of child labor but also education for children. They go together. One is not complete without the other.

References

Chowdhry, G. and Mark Beeman. (2001). Challenging Child Labor: Transnational

Activism and India’s Carpet Industry. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 575, Children’s Rights, pp. 158-175.

Edmonds, E. (2007). Child Labor. In T. P. Schultz and J. Strauss, (Eds.). Handbook of Development Economics Volume 4. (Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, North-Holland), forthcoming. Retrieved January 31, 2007 from http://www.dartmouth.edu/~eedmonds/clhbk.pdf

http://swamiagnivesh.com/repo2007.htm

http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_childlabour.html

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/k2crc.htm

The World Needs a Responsive and Better United Nations (UN)

2010-06-23T15:41:00.000-07:00

Has the UN lived up to the mandates of its Charter since its birth in 1945?

Among the mandates of the UN are to prevent wars, ensure fundamental human rights, respect treaties and international law, promote social progress and improve the quality of life, establish international cooperation and dispute settlements, maintain international peace and security, refrain from using armed force except in the common interest, and promote the economic and social advancement of all. These may seem lofty ideals, but they are legitimate mandates of the UN.

After 65 years in existence, the UN has been through failures and successes on the exercise and performance of its mandates set in the Charter. One of the most remembered failures of the UN which drew a great deal of criticisms happened in the Democratic Republic of Congo or at that time simply "Congo" in early 1960s. From all sides of the conflict in Congo, the UN was the recipient of harsh and valid criticisms. Another event that elicited criticisms worldwide was the inability of the UN to halt the invasion of Iraq, a sovereign member-state, by the allied-forces led by the US.

Despite of these criticisms and failures, the UN was able to survive and remains highly regarded. It was so because the UN had successes in other endeavors such as negotiating and bringing peace in Arab-Israel war in 1948, French-British-Israeli invasion of Egypt in 1956, withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola, independence of Namibia in 1990, civil wars in Central America in 1990s, and war and election in Cambodia in 1992. In all these good news, the UN had a hand in significant and pivotal role. Another reason was that the UN codified international laws and reminded the Member-states to respect and abide by these laws. The two reasons were made possible by the reforms of the UN through the years.

To understand the UN, it is better to consider and acknowledge what it is not. The UN is not a world government. It is an aggregation of sovereign governments, and sovereignty resides in each member-states. Although it may appear and at times function as a government, it certainly lacks some essential powers of a government such as power to tax and power to legislate policies that are automatically binding to member-states.

In the 2006 Report of the former Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Mandating and Delivering: Analysis and recommendations to facilitate the review of mandates, it was one of the many initiatives for reforms in the UN under the leadership of Annan. It sought to inventory the mandates emanating from the resolutions of various bodies and councils in the UN. It identified the following problems; "burdensome reporting requirements," "overlap between and within organs," "an unwieldy and duplicative architecture for implementation," and "gap between mandates and resources." The identification of problems can be interpreted as an admission of failures. However, it is also an expression of resolve for a better UN to effectively live up to its mandates.

The UN is under a new Secretary-General in the person of Ban Ki-moon who took over early this year. In his 2007 Address to the General Assembly for its 62nd session, he recognized the need for reform because the overall theme of his speech was "A Stronger UN for a Better World." He said that "transforming the way the UN does business - shifting our focus to emphasize results rather than bureaucratic process - will take patience, perseverance and courage." Indeed, the challenges facing the UN are tremendous. For examples, it has to deal with Darfur crisis, Kosovo status, Iraq instability, Iran nuclear ambition, Myanmar democratization, Georgia's territorial integrity, Russia's emerging intransigence, just to name a few.

The world is getting more complex and challenging for the UN which is mandated to maintain international peace and security. Conflicts abound, human rights abuses perpetuate, poverty is widespread, climate change displaces millions of people, terrorism threatens, and among all other things that need actions from a stronger UN to better the world.

It is true that the world is rapidly changing. The UN can not simply watch the world changing and act accordingly. To be effective, reforms have to be instituted. That's why the 2004 Report of the High-level Panel advises the UN and its Security Council "to be more proactive and acquire greater credibility, legitimacy and representation." It can start from reviewing the expediency of veto power from any permanent members of the SC. How can any of the five members take hostage the whole world in decision-making?

The world is changing and so the UN too. After 65 years, the UN has acted and not acted on issues with regards to its mandates to the world. Still, the UN remains our hope for peace in the world in spite of some shortcomings and failures.

Apocalypse Now: Parallelisms Revealed in the Film

2010-06-22T05:56:00.000-07:00

I have special fascination with the film, Apocalypse Now. One thing is that it is shot in the Philippines. Another thing is that the title, Apocalypse Now, captures the end of what is as described in the Revelation. The title itself is able to situate the dreaded future in the history of war/conflict in the mind of person. In their book The Hollywood War Machine, Boggs and Pollard (2007, p.134) has a better term for it, "crisis of conscience."

The film was made in the Philippines during the dictatorial and martial law regime of Ferdinand Marcos in the 1970s. I read that many international and popular events were held during these turbulent times in the Philippine history. Some of which were Miss Universe in 1974, the greatest boxing match between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier dubbed as Thrilla in Manila in 1975, world chess title match between Karpov and Korchnoi in 1978, Pope John Paul II visit in 1981, the filming of this movie, and other big events. While these international events were happening in the country, domestic events such as the growing rebellion by the communist movement, numerous human rights abuses, and massive corruption were being obliterated in the international and local media. I think that was the main objective of these international and big events - to project the Philippines as a land of beautiful things and wonderful events to the world. To the millions of Filipinos, hellish conditions surrounded them with grinding poverty, military violence and abuses, thousands of killings and disappearances, controlled media, and no fair and credible election since 1965. It was an apocalyptic period under Marcos in the Philippines.

In Revelation 13: 13-14, "And he performed great and miraculous signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to earth in full view of men. Because of the signs he was given power to do on behalf of the first beast, he deceived the inhabitants of the earth." The "great and miraculous signs" can be the visitation of well-known people and stars including the Pope and people are deceived or blinded by these ephemeral fanfare. Marcos epitomized the beast coming out of the earth.

In his analysis of Apocalypse Now in his Strategy Pedagogy and Pedagogic Strategy, Gow (2006, p.403) states that madness in many ways "is the perfectly rational and logical extension of the decision to apply violent means to political purposes." Marcos used this madness. The United States applied this madness when it went to war with Vietnam probably without knowing what it was getting into. Col. Kurtz had this madness. Capt. Willard exhibited this madness when he shot the dying Vietnamese girl. The film portrayed these as the nature of war.

Psychologist Sigmund Freud argued that human instincts cause the war-thinking of man. He presented two human instincts; those that care and those that destroy. The latter obviously is responsible to spark the war thinking of man. In the film, a French woman talked about man's capability to love and kill. It presented the dichotomy of human capability.

Apocalypse Now is a film shot in the Philippines which also reflects the historical and apocalyptic moment of that country when the film is being made. Is it coincidental? I think Francis Ford Coppola is a genius.

Innocent Voices of conflicts: Childrens' muted cry

2010-06-21T06:55:00.000-07:00

The film, Innocent Voices, presents a story of Chava, an 11-year old boy, in a small village in El Salvador during the outbreak of civil war in the 1980s. The film is a departure from the previous films the class has watched in which they depict the characters are deeply involved in the conflict as soldiers, rebels, and suicide bombers. In Innocent Voices, it depicts the story of victims; those who are trapped in the midst of a conflict. It takes the perspective of a child who is on the verge of being recruited in the El Salvadoran army, who becomes "a man in the house" when his father has left them, and who falls in love with a classmate.

In his Strategy Pedagogy and Pedagogic Strategy, Gow (2006) defines war as "contest underpinned by violence between politically motivated groups using it as a peculiar decision making tool" (p. 394). The civil war in El Salvador in the 1980s pitted the US-backed and financed El Salvadoran army versus the Frente Farabundo Marti para La Liberacion Nacional (FMLN). The film through its presentation of the journey of an 11-year old boy caught up in the web of civil war is able to deepen the understanding of the social and historical contexts of the war itself (ibid, 2006).

In the same article, Gow (2006) points out that "there is a long tradition, dating back to Aristotle, which holds that narrative (and symbolic) representation, including acts of violence, can be cathartic and even therapeutic" (p. 396). The question and answer part of the class with the writer (Torres) on which the story of the film is based is the highlight of the film class. Torres considered the filming of his story as a healing process of the wounds and bitter memories brought about by the civil war in his life. He repeatedly recognized the tool of the film as such for himself and for the others who experienced and witnessed similar images and realities of war.

Many realities of war are depicted in the film. One of which is the recruitment of child soldiers. I think this is the advocacy of the film. Child soldiering is prevalent in other war-torn countries such as Sierra Leone, Angola, Sudan, Uganda, Sri Lanka and Burma. In the film, it estimates the number of child soldiers around the world to be at about 400,000. This is the part I like about the film. It carries an advocacy, an added meaning to the story. It touches those who watch it to think about the children who are robbed of their innocence and childhood. It is hoped that the thinking leads to action against the recruitment of child soldiers in the conflict.

G.I. Jane Story: Losing femininity

2010-06-20T13:22:00.000-07:00

Films take us to view social issues with certain perspectives. One of these is a gender one. Let's see how a film is viewed with a gender perspective.

The film G.I. Jane follows the story of the first woman who is selected to undergo a "test case" in the rigorous Navy Seal training. Her name is Lt. Jordan O'Neil (Demi Moore), a Navy Intelligence officer. As a test case, she is not expected to finish the whole training which is physically and mentally demanding for both a woman and man. In the history of the training program, only 40% of the applicants make it to the end and become full-pledged Navy Seals.

Against all odds including the suspicion on her sexual orientation as a lesbian which is a ground for expulsion in the training, Lt. O'Neil surprises everyone especially the skeptics. She becomes a member of the elite force of Navy Seals.

Did Lt. O'Neil lose her femininity during the training? Did she become one of the boys on the way of becoming a Navy Seal? These two questions cause me to revisit various scenes to answer the questions. I would argue that she lost her femininity during the training and that she became one of the boys.

Prior to her entry to the training, Lt. O'Neil had a boyfriend. They had a misunderstanding when she decided to undergo the training. Upon arrival to the training site and meeting the superior, she was obviously different among the rest. She was a woman in a wrong and man's place. And Lt. O'Neil felt and complained about having a double standard just because she was there with the rest. She asked and pleaded for one standard for all. To stress her point, she shaved her hair to look like the rest. Without her hair and in uniform, there was no trace of her being a woman in the training.

However, one man knew that there was a woman inside Lt. O'Neil during the training. It was the Master Chief. From the beginning, he gave gender-norming to her. When he was trying to physically subdue Lt. O'Neil to confess, he tried to pull down her pants from behind. This was a manifestation that Lt. O'Neil was a woman in the eyes of the master Chief because it would never be done by the Master Chief with any applicants except to a woman. But Lt. O'Neil dismissed the act and challenged the Master Chief and said, "suck my dick." For me, this is the ultimate demonstration that Lt. O'Neil lost her femininity.

Another instance where the Master Chief saw Lt. O'Neil as a woman when he shot an enemy closing to Lt. O'Neil. It was a scene of a knight shining armor saving a maiden. But Lt. O'Neil returned the favor when she carried and saved the Master Chief from a hostile ground to a safe ground. Again, she was a knight too.

I believe that the Master Chief acted splendidly and outperformed the rest. There was a scene after his fistfight with Lt. O'Neil that struck me. Recognizing that there was a woman in the training, the Master Chief admitted to his teammate that there was something wrong in them.

Another scene near the end which is one of my favorite moments in the film was when Lt. O'Neil received a little book written by D.H Lawrence. The book was marked by a medal and a poem on self-pity which was the opening salvo of the Master Chief during the training. Walking out of a door and smiling wryly, the Master Chief realized that he was wrong and sorry for treating and seeing Lt. O'Neil as a woman; thus,·

Self-Pity

I never saw a wild thing
sorry for itself
A small bird will drop frozen dead from a bough
without ever having felt sorry for itself.

Did Lt. O'Neil regain her femininity? There was no scene that would suggest that she did.

Power of films in peacebuilding: The good war formula in the film Michael Collins

2010-06-19T06:49:00.000-07:00

As an advocate and believer of international peacebuilding, I believe that films have the power to shape my ideas on peace and conflict. The influence of films is undeniably rooted in the pervasiveness of popular culture in our society. A walk on the streets of San Jose would present the high popularity and profitable business of selling "pirated" digital films. This scene and long lines and stalls of film vendors are no different from the streets of Manila where I come from.

I have a deep interest in films that appeal to nationalist or patriotic sentiments. Michael Collins released in 1996 does fall into this category. It is a story of an Irish hero who inspired and led a revolutionary struggle for independence against the British empire. He was assassinated by a young patriot. He died without seeing the Irish Republic, a dream he would have loved to see. In the book The Hollywood War Machine (2007), Boggs and Pollard portrayed the hero, Michael Collins, as the same as the "warrior champions" who exemplify the virtues of "tenacity, tough-mindedness, honor, selflessness, nobility, and of course patriotism."

My fascination of patriotic films hinges on my belief that it is noble to fight for independence under a colonizing power. I believe in the self-determination rule as a better set-up for separatist ethnic groups. The film has traces of the good war formula by Boggs and Pollard. Indeed in the film, the conflict is projected as noble, imperative and heroic. The executions of the atrocious British spies are depicted as necessary to advance the cause of independence.

Also, the film is about the fight between good (Irish as the freedom fighter) and evil (British as the occupier). The scene on the football field where the British soldiers suddenly emerged and randomly shot the Irish spectators creates an evil image on the British soldiers. Another feature that makes the film fits into the good war formula is that the story is typically about (white) male heroism. The actor that played Michael Collins is Liam Neeson who has a reputation of playing hero in the movies Rob Roy, Schindler's List, and Star Wars.

As a biographical and epic film, Michael Collins, how historically authentic is the film? I think this is the biggest challenge for any biographical films that are based in real people, places, time and events. According to Scott (2002) on his From Heroism to Obscurity: A Critique of Michael Collins, he indicated that the film was very accurate and did not romanticize the events and characters.

I am glad to know that the film is truthfully done. The dramatic licenses invoked by the director who is an Irish could be seen as fashionable formula for Hollywood and commercial movies. The inclusion of bankable movie stars such as Liam Neeson, Julia Roberts, Aidan Quinn, Allan Rickman, and Stephen Rea is to attract moviegoers to watch the film. The romantic flavor between the hero and a lady gives the story a human touch. It adds to the drawing power of the film.

However, the main objective of the film, to my mind, is the introduction and presentation of the life of a real Irish hero who is not widely and popularly known in the world and the historical narrative of Irish independence from Britain. I think the film has succeeded in this respect while not compromising with the authenticity of the events, places, and people depicted in the film itself. This is aside from the good war formula that most Hollywood war movies follow.

Peace and Justice in a prolonged war: Sierra Leone case

2010-06-18T08:59:00.000-07:00

Can Justice and Peace co-exist in a prolonged war? But I would cast a doubt on the part which runs, in a case of prolonged war like Sierra Leone, - this phrase particularly the word in can be interpreted that still a war is going on. Then, Justice and Peace can not possibly co-exist if there is still a war. Thus, I would change the word in to after a prolonged war. Only then I would agree to the co-existence of justice and peace. Why?

I am an optimist. I believe that anything good is possible if the world including me wills it. Justice and Peace are human virtues. As human, I yearn for those virtues to exist in the world. All the parties involved in the war are humans or have humanity in themselves. Justice and Peace can be drawn from their humanity. How wonderful the human world will be if Justice and Peace reign in the world. Many human rights activists and peace workers will be out of job, but it will be perfectly fine for them since it is their and everyone's dream to have a world devoid of injustice and war.

It is often said that one can only understand and make sense of one thing through its opposite or absence of it. To understand Justice, let me talk about injustice then. Injustice occurs when one is deprived of what is due to her/him. It happens to a landless farmer, jailed "terrorists" like in Guantanamo Bay without trial, dismissal of employee without due process, demolition of houses without advanced notice, orphans whose parents are killed by either rebels or government forces, children who are forced to work or fight in wars, and many other examples of injustices. So the courses of Justice in these examples are land to the farmers, trial to the accused, due process to the dismissed employee, advanced notices to the informal settlers, court's conviction of the killers and traffickers, and emancipation and rehabilitation of children from the wretched conditions.

War like in Sierra Leone takes place because two or more groups compete for a resource/s and have a conflicting goal/s. So Peace can be understood here as the cooperation or partnership of two or more groups in communal resource/s and having common and shared goal/s.

I would argue that Justice and Peace can happen and co-exist after a prolonged war like in Sierra Leone. Then, what could have been done in Sierra Leone to make this a reality?

The peace settlement could have been the best venue for Justice and Peace to happen in Sierra Leone. But the parties involved bungled it with the blanket amnesty clause which would not address the crimes of the combatants and leaders. Unaddressed and unresolved crimes mean injustice to the victims. The parties were more concerned with ending the war, and not with the injustices. This was, in my mind, a blunder. Leaving the injustices unaddressed would result to a fragile and superficial peace. This is not the Peace I have in mind.

What could have been done in the beginning are the following; 1) call for ceasefire on all parties, 2) continue engaging the rebels and government to peace settlement without preconditions, 3) prosecute those rebels who were captured, keep Sankoh in jail and allow the rebels to choose and send their representatives to the negotiation, 4) familiarize the parties to objective and existing options such as Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Special Court, Amnesty and Pardon, and other matters relevant to the resolution of the war, 5) establish and define the role of the UN and national and international civil society in the negotiation, 6) cite the importance and necessity of a Special Court in a peace settlement to give justice to those who have been aggrieved and violated, 7) assure the parties of the wide-ranging and all-out support of the international community on the process and outcome of the negotiation, 8) plan out the DDR program for all combatants, and 9) after the DD, schedule a presidential election to submit the leaders' fate to the will of the people.

It would have been another story if these had been done in the beginning. I believe that it would have been a better story with both Justice and Peace reigning in Sierra Leone. Or am I being too optimistic here? I would say it does not hurt to yearn and desire the good things for the world like Justice and Peace. I believe that both can coexist because I dream of that scenario. That dream motivates me to pursue this program of peace studies.