2010 Nobel Peace Prize: Pursuing the Hard Peace This Time

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?

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

“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

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

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

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

".. 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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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.  

Child rights' activism: Prospects on advocacy

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.