Regional Integration in Central America: Its History, Uses and Feasibility

Introduction

As a Filipino, regional integration is not new to me. I have come to learn that my country is part of this regional organization called Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). Just this year 2007, the Philippines hosted the 12th ASEAN summit attended by the heads of the 10 member-states, namely; the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore, Indonesia, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, and Myanmar. It was a huge event in the Philippines as the public, through the media, was bombarded with advertisements of the summit’s theme, “One Caring and Sharing Community.” However, for most Filipinos including me, we know more of this regional “community” played out in the biennial Southeast Asia (SEA) Games where the Philippines is the reigning and defending overall champion. I have observed that the ASEAN annual summit appeals to the elites while the SEA Games fascinate the common people. All the same, the summit and games have effectively entered into the consciousness of Filipinos as instruments of this regional integration.

Throughout this paper, integration “refers to the merger of peoples into a transnational society and polity (and a transnational economy also…)” (Puchala 1968, 39). And ASEAN, for me, is going to this direction of integration.

Another thing that caused me to choose this topic on regional integration in Central America is the fact that armed conflicts in this region had been terminated while a similar armed conflict in my country still rages on for more than three decades now. It intrigued me on how these Central American armed conflicts, such as in Guatemala, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, were resolved. As a researcher, I could not help but ask rhetorical and comparative questions, such as what conditions were present in Central America that paved the way for the normative peace treaties or agreements? Could those conditions be found and applied in the Philippines? What did Central America do right in its approach to peace? And what is the Philippines doing wrong and why is it failing in its approach to conflict?

I have seen the hideous face of conflict in my Bicol region where I grew up. Practically, some of our localities have two “governments,” one as the mainstream and the other is the underground. Most often than not, these two sides clash, thereby displacing the civilians from their homes and livelihood. In one of my fieldworks in Masbate Island, I came face to face with the victims of this conflict. They felt that they were abandoned by their mainstream government and left to depend on the underground government for their basic human right to security. It breaks my heart to see my fellow Bicolanos living in a makeshift shelter as evacuees and victims of this conflict and without knowing when they could go back home safely. Normalcy seems to have lost its charm in the midst of insecurities of the people. They get so familiar with the situation that in it, they find refuge.

Being in Costa Rica

Since I am in Costa Rica, although not a good point of reference if regional integration in Central America is the subject of interest (I will explain later why this is so), I decided to attend and witness a massive gathering and festive proceeding of the historic September 30 show of force by the opposition of Tratado de Libre Commercio (TLC), also known as Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) which fundamentally promotes free trade among Central American states and the United States (US). As a graduate student of peace studies, I wanted to understand the issues surrounding the controversial TLC that virtually divided the country. I also volunteered as international observer in the October 7 referendum which was won by Yes (Si) to TLC by an expected close margin of victory. I felt that I was seeing an integrating process by one state into a region to be able to trade with a much-larger state which is the US.

In this paper, I attempt to revisit the historical basis of Central American integration and see if the basis is sufficient to make the regional integration feasible. Or are there challenges to its integration process? Specifically, I look at the past and existing regional structures in Central America and how these initiatives and structures played a role in the efforts to end the conflicts in the region. Also, I try to sparingly refer to ASEAN, because that is my idea of regional integration, for any comparative value to Central American regional initiatives. My main argument is that Central America with its commonalities among states within it, such as widely-used Spanish language, compact geography, Catholicism, and shared colonial history and struggle for independence, has more reasons to work towards its regional integration and be eventually integrated. It is so unlike the ASEAN that is composed of states which have varied histories, different languages, scattered geographical locations, and diverse faith, but it has so far worked out as an entity and is able to represent the region in international gatherings and fora.

Being in one of the Central American states and studying in a multicultural university, I have the opportunity and privilege to personally ask simple questions to Central American citizens from El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, and Costa Rica to either support or negate my argument. Admittedly as trained in anthropological methods, I have a preference and interest for the voices from “below” and not from the “official” and “mainstream” discourses I usually get from public officials. Although I would not make a claim that the responses of my informants are definitive sentiments of Central American citizens, but I would certainly take them as indicative of something that is worth-researching on the subject of regional integration in Central America. One thing though that I thought could have helped me a lot in developing this paper is the facility of Spanish language. While going through the articles and books about the subject of interest, I realized that most of them are in Spanish. Regrettably yet thoroughly, I make do with what I could find useful in English.

Integrative processes of a region

There are four “new” regional perspectives in human geography, as Bradshaw (cited in Holmen 1995, 48) would put it; namely, according to humanists, “the region is a source of identification and meaning;” in the lens of structuralists and world-systems theorists, “regional change is the local response to (world) capitalist processes;” in “Hagerstrand's time-geography and Giddens' structuration theory, the region is an arena enabling or constraining social interaction;” and “for 'realists' local variation is the outcome of spatial contingency effects of economic restructuring.” Holmen (1995, 53) objects to the notion of “regions as illustrations of predetermined structures and/or processes.” These perspectives and objection are useful in my argument that Central America faces challenges towards its integration. What if the region does not provide common identification and meaning to its constituents? What if the regional change is not a local response but a hegemonic effort from a super power state like the US? What if the social interaction in the region is in itself a contested and subdued form brought about by previous misunderstanding and misconstrued image of the others in the region? And I agree with Holmen (1995) that regions are not “predetermined structures”, rather, I would say, a social construct.

I consider the articles of Brand (2005) on global governance and Alvarez (2006) on (in)security discourses as the backdrop of the logic of regional integration for nation-states. Brand (2005, 160) indicates that “many social processes and the problems and policies associated with them are taking place at the international level.” Most of these social processes and problems could be interpreted in economic sense, but have to be dealt with politically. One good example of this is the TLC which is an economic agreement, yet it has to undergo a referendum which is a political exercise. He further explains that these problems, which practically touch on everyone in one way or another, “should be dealt with cooperatively and in dialogue” (161). The benefits of cooperation and dialogue are the driving forces to address common social problems that beset the nation-states concerned. Describing the international system as anarchic, Alvarez (2006, 63) cites Buzan’s People, States and Fear (1991) and points out that “this anarchic system is fuelled by state’s actions to preserve their sovereignty.” Alvarez (2006, 64) declares that “national security is relational and interdependent with the security of other states.” This idea of security, to my mind, gives rise to cooperation among self-interested nation-states to keep their own national security intact.

Puchala (1968, 46) presents the dynamic processes of regional integration. Among which are “cooperative actions among nation-states of regional system supersedes competitive interaction,” (47) “consensus, or similarity in interpretation or reaction concerning major issues of intra-regional and international affairs,” (47) and “the likelihood that international conflict among states within the integrating region will be resolved by violence decreases markedly” (48). Unlike ASEAN which to me is probably one or two steps ahead of Central America in terms of regional integration, these processes are important to note to see how the two regions proceed and manage these integrative processes.
Historical basis for integration in Central America

Interestingly, the Central American region (Guatemala, Honduras, Belize, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama) shares the same colonial history and struggle for independence against one colonial power. In 1535 – 1821, the Viceroyalty of New Spain ruled Central America, Carribean, Mexico, and the US Golf coast with Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, New Mexico, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona, and southern California. For Central America, a Captaincy General of Guatemala (Kingdom of Guatemala) was formed under the Viceroyalty in Mexico. In 1821, Mexico gained independence from Spain, together with Central America. Then in 1823, the United Provinces of Central America was formed with Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. However in 1838, the union was dissolved and each country became independent states until the present.

After becoming independent states, there were attempts, mostly in war, to reunite Central America as one. All of these attempts failed. Nevertheless, this aspiration is manifest in the past and existing regional structures and initiatives which, at times, played key roles in ending conflicts within the region and sometimes were casualties of the conflicts.

Notable among these regional structures and initiatives which promoted regional integration and cooperation are the Central American Court of Justice (1907-18, 1962-present), Organizacion de Estados Centroamericanos (ODECA) in 1951-73, Central American Common Market (CACM) in 1960-69 and reinstated in 1991, Central American Bank for Economic Integration (CABEI) in 1960-present, Central American Integration System (SICA) in 1993 with parliament component, and Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2006.

Conflicts in the region and regional structures and initiatives

Central America has been mired with conflicts between states and intra-states since the independence in 1821. An example for conflicts between states is the so-called and misleading “Football” war between Honduras and El Salvador in 1969. Many factor contributed to the escalation of the conflict. Some of which were the obvious disparities between the two states- (Honduras had small population with vast land while El Salvador had a growing population in a small territory), the incursion of Salvadorans of Honduras land, and worsening political and economic conditions in the two countries. This conflict caused the collapse of CACM. The Organization of American States (OAS), a much larger regional group that includes North America and South America, mediated successfully and brought the conflict to an end. I would note here that there are overlapping regional subsystems that operate within smaller regional subsystems. For examples, the OAS covers three regional subsystems (North, Central, and South Americas) and the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) covers ASEAN and other Pacific Rim countries.

In the 1980s, there were intra-states civil conflicts in Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador. The Contadora group composed of Colombia, Mexico, Panama, Venezuela with the support of other European states tried to come up with peaceful solutions to the conflicts but failed. Although many factors could be attributed to this failure, the major reason was the attitudes of non-Central American protagonists - Cuba and the US which had not supported the idea of the group. Oscar Arias, President of Costa Rica (1986-1990) picked up the idea of Contadora group and the Esquipulas II peace accords were signed by five Central American presidents. Because of this, Arias was awarded the 1987 Nobel Peace Prize. Normative peace in Central America finally dawned. In 1990, the Oslo peace accord ended the three decades of conflict in Guatemala and a democratic election in Nicaragua was held. Then in 1992, there was the peace accord in El Salvador.

Regional structures and initiatives, such as OAS, Contadora group, and Esquipulas peace plan, could be instrumental in ending conflicts in the region.

Post-conflict Central America

The civil conflicts definitely left a lasting and irreparable legacy to the lives of the people. The effects on the people may be direct or indirect and overt or covert. Mosser and McIlwaine (2001) document the post-conflict context in Guatemala. They found out that “people reported that they suffered more violence than they had during the worst years of the war” (Ibid, 41). Violence was still pervasive. Widespread massacres in rural areas, kidnappings, robberies, rape and torture were unexpectedly happening. According to Mosser and McIlwaine, “one of the most important legacies of the armed conflict was the culture of silence (cultura de silencio)” (43). Although silence prevents further violence, it does not abdicate hatred, revenge, remorse, and violence itself. It in fact breeds more of them. This kind of legacy of armed conflict could not be addressed by any normative peace accords. The passivity of silence by the people renders any efforts to involve these people into projects to a grinding difficulty, nearing futility because it is culturally-rooted. However, this finding of the armed conflict’s legacy does not stop Central American states to aspire to be integrated (e.g. CAFTA).

Voices from the people

Citing Puchala (1968, 39), I have operationally defined integration in the beginning of this paper as “merger of peoples into a transnational society, polity and economy.” Thus I asked people from El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica about their ideas on Central America and the feasibility of its integration.

Dr. Victor Valle, an El Salvadorian and head of International Peace Studies department at UPEACE, mentioned to me about the dispersion of aspirations among Central American people. For him, there was no psyche or symbol that can unite the people of Central America especially if Costa Ricans always see themselves as different from the rest of Central America. By different, he meant “developed” as a country. As El Salvadorian, he also sees this difference by the Costa Ricans to the rest of the people of the region. Yet still, the people of Central America have the notion of “Fatherland,” which primarily pertains to one’s state and not to the region. If that notion can be expanded to the region, then the feasibility of integration will be in for the taking.

Brenda Gonzalez, from Honduras and a current student of International Law and Settlement of Disputes at UPEACE, echoed the absence of regional consciousness in Central America and also affirmed the observation of Dr. Valle on Costa Ricans. She said that integration will not be possible because Costa Ricans will not allow that. Costa Ricans feel that integration is a step backward.

At this point, I was perplexed by this “difference” that Brenda and Dr. Valle mentioned. I was dissatisfied by an explanation that this difference stems from the abstract notion of development levels, less developed against more developed.

Carla Ortiz, a Nicaraguan and head of the Department of Academic Administration (DAA) of UPEACE, provided me an acceptable explanation of this difference between Costa Ricans and the rest of Central American people. She said that Costa Ricans think that they have “purer” Spanish blood than others in the region as made obvious by physical features like fairer skin, blonde hair, blue eyes, etc. Unlike other states with large indigenous population, Costa Rica has a small population of indigenous peoples which made the mixture of blood less likely and possible. According to Carla, this difference was manifested in her school years in Costa Rica; students from Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador would usually get together but Costa Rican students would usually not join and isolate themselves from the group. She also could not grasp a regional spirit that can unite Central America.

Speaking as Costa Rican, Eddy Quesada, an Administrative Assistant in DAA at UPEACE, believes that Central American people share many common things, such as food, Spanish language, and fondness for football. He introduced me to the concept of “paisa” or brotherhood. Many consider others as “paisas” or “hermanos,” signifying relations and oneness in origin (be it a place, family, school). However, he acknowledged that some people from the region hate Costa Ricans for being as they are. He also mentioned that this is brought about by being more “developed” than others and being “different.” He qualified the word “developed” as being better educated, good jobs offering high wage that’s why many people from the region flock to Costa Rica to work, good social security, and more opportunities here than anywhere else in the region. For being different, he said that many Central American people could not still understand the country’s abolition of the army. For Eddy, that practically sets them apart from the rest of the region. And for those reasons, the others envy or even hate them. As a Costa Rican, he said that he could not change what they think about him because that’s what the reality is – Costa Rica has better education, good jobs with high wages, more opportunities, and no army.

Staying for more a month now in Costa Rica, I have found myself living in a relatively well-off country with expensive commodities. Compared to my country, the Philippines, the prices of the same goods here are almost tripled. But still I would refrain using the problematic label, “developed,” to describe this country.

Conclusion

As I said in the beginning, Costa Rica is not the best place to be if my subject of interest is the regional integration of Central America. This country takes pride in being “different” from the rest of Central America. During the September-30 rally of the NO to TLC supporters, I talked with Ana, a student of University of Costa Rica. She took pride of the fact that Costa Rica is the only country in the world to have a referendum on such important issue and in the possibility of the first country to say NO to the US. For a while, I took offense to that because I thought it was the Philippines who first said NO to the US when our Senate did not renew the contract of the two US military bases to stay on the Philippine soil in 1991. Then I pondered that, so long as this kind of thinking and disposition of being different and taking pride out of it, the road to regional integration seems to be rocky and tedious if by integration we mean “merger of peoples.” Although in my case, ASEAN is functioning as a regional entity, I too could not identify with the rest of ASEAN and concept of regional community. I just feel that in that part of the world, we are simply and markedly different from the others in the region in too many essential aspects. There is still so much to work on for ASEAN to be truly one community.

Going back to Central America, the commonalities do not necessarily translate into common aspirations, hence integration. For the elites in the government who gain and benefit from regional integration, it becomes a way of proceeding in this globalizing world. And for the common people or masses, they do not extend themselves beyond the state level, or into regional level. The superstructure is simply not there to make regional integration happen.


Bibliography

Brand, Ulrich. “Order and regulation: Global Governance as a hegemonic discourse of
international politics?” Review of International Political Economy, 12:1 (February 2005): 155-176.

Holmen, Hans. “What’s New and What’s Regional in the ‘New Regional Geography?’”
Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, Vol. 77, No. 1 (1995): 47-63. See http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0435-3684%281995%2977%3A1%3C47%3AWNAWRI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-U. Date accessed 10 October 2007.

Mosser, Caroline and Cathy McIlwaine. Violence in a Post-Conflict Context: Urban Poor
Perceptions from Guatemala. Washington, D.C.: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ World Bank, 2001.

Puchala, Donald. “The Pattern of Contemporary Regional Integration.” International
Studies Quarterly, Vol. 12, No. 1 (March 1968): 38-64. See http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-8833%28196803%2912%3A1%3C38%3ATPOCRI%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Y. Date accessed 1 October 2007.

Power of Communities in Peacebuilding

Somewhere we belong to a community. It may be a locale where we live, our batch/class in school/university, our professional association, our workplace, and our environment. The categorization and determination can be spatial, personal and social.

Community-building has been used as a tool for peacebuilding. But the process of it has not really been understood and analyzed. It has become a lip-service and buzzword.

Thus, I would use my own experiences in the kind of communities I belong to. My hope is that my insights here can be used as tools for peacebuilding.

There are questions that remind me of a community. Those are the type of questions that invoke a certain feeling of nostalgia, significance of nourishment, and sense of belongingness. Let me begin by welcoming you to my kind of communities.

My Locale as a Community

Every time I am asked, where do I come from? I am reminded of my small community in Milaor, Camarines Sur in Bicol, Philippines. In that community where I was born and raised, I find myself part of its harmony, energy and character. My attachment to that community is not merely based on locale and territory. A fundamental association is built in the years that I live there, in the names of people that I know there, in the streets and corners that I cross and turn, and in the stories that I share with the locals. It is personally and intimately connected with me. Thus wherever I go, I bring a part of my locale.


UPeace and Ateneo de Manila University (ADMU) as a Community

Another question which reminds me of a community is, where do you study? I am taking up a graduate degree at the University for Peace (UPeace) in Costa Rica and ADMU in Manila. At UPeace and ADMU, I spend most of my conscious time. It is where I encounter and socialize with my peers, the staff and faculty. Graduate university life is not simply an extension of college life. Neither is it only about mastering a field of study, investing more time in reading and writing essays in graduate level, or meeting a deadline after deadlines of submission of requirements. It is, to my mind, a cultivation of learning environment within every student’s sphere of experience even outside the university life. It hosts a particular space and time for the advancement and nourishment of my intellectual, social, and ethical potentials and choices in life. It also prepares me to be a colleague of my esteemed professors who engage me in academic discussions. These instructive exchanges of views and ideas and other educational activities in which I participate provide me an opportunity for a meaningful professional growth and pursuit of passions.


The Dual-Campus Program as a Community

What course are you taking at UPeace? This question causes me to realize the uniqueness of my program. Aside from being dual-campus, my program creates a distinctive identification of those taking the course. The program is designed for Asian students who journey together for 19 months in the bustling Manila and lush-green Costa Rica campuses. Our common experiences and stories weave a strong and profound bond among Asian students. Our struggles with formal English language inside the classrooms and colloquial Spanish in Ciudad Colon and San Jose make us reach out to those who understand and accept our struggles. The delight of our own cultures seeks to contextualize our differences in the light and spirit of “unity in diversity.” The multicultural setting of both campuses facilitates the practice of cultural relativism which enables us to appreciate the beauty of our differences and similarities.

From my locale to my batchmates in UPeace-DIPS program, my sense of communities is what I bring to my work and interaction with others. It also informs my goal and vision of a world I would like to share with my children and communities.

From State to Human Security: Is the Philippines in such Transition?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Terrorism, Politics and Human Rights: A View from a State

“Peace and war are the products, respectively, of good and bad states.”
- Kenneth Waltz, 1959, p.114

Introduction

Last September 12, 2007, Dr. Walter Perron, Head of the Law Department at the University of Freiburg, Germany talked about the “Challenges of Fighting International Terrorism” in a panel discussion organized by the International Law and Human Rights Department of University for Peace. At the open forum, I asked this question; after six years of 9/11 attack on the United States (US) and the consequent global war on terrorism initiated and financed by the US, is the world getting safer today or more dangerous?

Gilpin’s theory on hegemonic war reverberates in the US global war on terror as US reasserts its supremacy when its status as the most powerful State in the world was challenged by Al-Queda network (Gresham, 1993). How do other States respond to this hegemonic global war against terrorism?

Terrorism has shaken the way human rights are viewed. The terror sown by 9/11incident in New York, 3/11 train bombings in Madrid, and 7/7 train bombings in London caused various States to adopt anti-terrorism and rights-restricting measures that would curb and prevent the threat of or actual terror attack in their own territorial jurisdictions. And these States which strongly vow to end terrorism and ceaselessly pursue the people who espouse terrorism are known to be the pillars and models of present democratic systems – USA, United Kingdom, and Spain. In their fight against global terrorism, there are rights that were compromised, such as, rights to privacy, free speech, and movement. Privacy is infringed to be able the authorities to discover and trace evidences of terror plots, free speech is limited not to inflame and aggravate the ethnic, religious, and other emotionally-charged conflicts, and movement to secure the suspects in the custody of authorities (http://www.amnesty.org, 2005). Even the rights of sovereign States such as, Afghanistan and Iraq that hosted Al-Queda operatives and posed as challengers in Gilpin’s theory, to non-interference, non-intervention and self-determination were said to be derogated in pursuit of this global fight against terrorism.

In 2003, United Nation's Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in a ministerial-level meeting of Security Council's Counter-Terrorism Committee as quoted in the website of United Nations Information Service;
Domestically, he said, the danger was that in pursuit of security, crucial liberties were sacrificed. Internationally, the world was seeing an increasing use of the "T-word" of terrorism to demonize political opponents, throttle freedom of speech and the press, and delegitimize legitimate political grievances. Similarly, States fighting various forms of unrest or insurgency were finding it tempting to abandon political negotiation for the deceptively easy option of military action.
The world’s attention is on the global scale of the war on terror. The news and controversies revolve around the international or interstate level like the US-led invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. There seems to be a lack of attention on the local and national level of this war on terror. It is an attempt of this paper to fill such lack of information and attention on the national level of one State. Following a traditionalist approach, the unit of analysis here is a nation-state (Dinar, 2000).

This paper presents how a State like the Philippines could utilize this global war on terror to its advantage against valid and legitimate opposition in its own turf. It is argued here that the world is getting more dangerous because a State with its immense power could appropriate the war’s scale and scope within its fancy and imagination of the application and definition of terrorism to its citizens. This kind of appropriation of power or politics and war on terror are key challenges to peace in the Philippines as they undermine human rights and political stability.

The Philippines: In Perspective

Projecting as leading the fight in the Southeast Asia against terrorism and courting the US for financial support, the Philippine State issued orders and used force restricting and curtailing human rights to hold on to power when its legitimacy was being questioned while it was pursuing war in Southern Philippines against Abu Sayyaf and the New People’s Army (NPA) of the Communist Party of the Philippines (both terrorist groups in the US list). [In the subsequent used of the State, it would refer to the Philippine State.]

Having undergone two people power revolutions (1986 and 2001), the State was wary of a repeat of another people power. The 1986 people power revolution toppled a dictator, Marcos, who infamously committed human rights abuses. As a result, the 1987 and still the present Constitution is full of guards and shields against potential human rights abuses.

Legitimizing the global war on terror locally

The Abu Sayyaf (Bearer of the Sword, in Arabic) hugged the international limelight when it hostaged several foreigners including US citizens in Sipadan, Sabah, Malaysia in 2000. Previously driven by Islamic ideology and with alleged ties to Al-Qaeda, the Abu Sayyaf launched kidnappings, bombings, beheadings, and massacres in Southern Philippines. With the highest estimated number of 1,200 fighters, it has stronghold in the islands of Basilan and Sulu which are populated mostly by Muslims (Clark, 2002). Many of its fighters are believed to have trained in Afghanistan. Its notoriety claimed a spot in the US list of terrorist groups with rewards reaching 5 million dollars each for information leading to the capture or death of its core leaders.

Another group which is on the US list of terrorist is the Maoist-inspired NPA which has been fighting the State for almost 40 years now. The State has been suspecting that most activists are members of the NPA (http://pia.gov.ph, 2006).

Cloaked by this global fight against terrorism, the State waged an all-out war against the New People’s Army and Abu Sayyaf with full support from the US. As of this writing, it is still on all-out war against Abu Sayyaf in Basilan and Sulu islands and NPA.

Politics and legitimacy issue of the State

While the war in Basilan and Sulu was going on, the political condition of the State was in trouble. The State was facing internal issues and concerns that rocked and questioned its exercise of and reason for power. It was charged with legitimacy issue by allegedly having cheated in the 2004 presidential election as documented by a wiretapped conversation between President Arroyo and an election officer. The coming out of the wiretapped tape in 2005 led to the unmasking of the enormous power and politics of the State to defend itself and take control of its stock. Wolff (1970, 3) defines politics as “the exercise of the power of the state.”

Due to the legitimacy issue, politics became a household name and pervaded the national scene and everyday lives of Filipinos. The issue moved many people including 10 senior government officials who resigned, a former president, a sitting senate president, an influential business group, and some Catholic bishops to call for the resignation of President Arroyo in 2005. Mass protests and rallies reminiscent of the people power revolutions were occurring nationwide especially in the capital Manila. President Arroyo barely held on to power until Proclamation No.1017 was declared in February 2006 to quell the reported collusion among leftist groups, disgruntled soldiers, and civil society to oust her from power. The State was in a national emergency with which President Arroyo called on the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to suppress lawless violence or terrorism acts. Justifying its actions, the State invoked public good, order, and security to override some human rights like freedom of speech, right to assembly, freedom to dissent, warrantless arrests, among others. With 1017, mass protests calling for the resignation of the president were banned and dispersed violently by police’s batons and water canons. Opposition members from the leftist groups were arrested without preliminary investigation for plotting a rebellion.

C. Wright Mills (as cited in Arendt, 1970, 35) states that “all politics is a struggle for power; the ultimate kind of power is violence.” Asserting its power and clearly without the backing of the majority of its people, the State used “violence as the most flagrant manifestation of power” to control the provoked citizenry (Arendt, 1970, 38). It counted and depended heavily on the support and force of the military to be able to keep its power intact. As Dinar (2000) puts it, the essence of the State’s security is its power. Thus, it started to eliminate threats to its security and, in the process, it committed various human rights violations.

“State-sponsored” human rights abuses (extrajudicial killings)

Arendt (1970, 56) indicates that “violence appears where power is in jeopardy.” The opposition sought the intervention of the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of Proclamation 1017. The High Court ruled that some provisions were constitutional and some were not. The decision (G.R. No. 171396) further stressed that, “One of the misfortunes of an emergency, particularly, that which pertains to security, is that military necessity and the guaranteed rights of the individual are often not compatible” (http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph). The State interpreted the ruling as favorable because it saw this necessity for military force to thwart national security threats. It lumped together the terrorists, rebel groups and opposition members as security threats which needed to be “neutralized” as enemies of the State. This resulted to unabated extrajudicial killings which were done systematically against political activists known to be critical of the State.

The Amnesty International (AI) 1983 report on Political Killings by Governments describes 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). The same 1983 AI report enumerated the “preconditions” or indicators of political killings and other human rights violations by States. These 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). It would be noted that most of the preconditions or indicators of the killings existed in 2005 and 2006 in the Philippines.

In July 2007, the Philippine Daily Inquirer quoted a human rights group in the Philippines, Karapatan, that its latest count of extrajudicial killings reached 863 since President Arroyo assumed office in 2001 (http://www.inquirer.net, 2007). In 2005, AI recorded 66 extrajudicial killings and there were approximately 61-96 killings in 2006. This prompted the United Nations (UN) to send its Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial killings on February 12-21, 2007 to investigate the spate of killings in the Philippines and found out that the killings were results of the State’s tagging of victims as enemies of the State (Alston, 2007). Alston uncovered direct links of some rogue elements of the military on the killings of activists and journalists, although the State was in denial of the findings.

Conclusion

Since 1017, the State has been on the offensive of tightening its grip on power. It resorted to violence as a “last resort to keep the power structure intact against individual challengers” (Arendt, 1970, 47). In the process, human rights laws have been violated. It is regrettable because “human rights law provides human beings with protection from abuse on the part of governments and other actors that hold power” (Griffin, 2007). Supposedly, human rights are protected by the State’s Constitution and even international covenants in which the State is a signatory. In this case, human rights became collateral damages on the appropriated war on terror by the State.


In the name of global war on terror, the State has legitimized its own war. However, Arendt (1970, 52) claims that violence would never be legitimate although justifiable. No matter how the State veils its own war for its survival, it can never generate power and rule as it wants to. It only gets its own position more dangerous and unstable. Sadly, it also brings the whole country in trouble.

Recently, the State passed into law an anti-terrorism act or Human Security Act of 2007. The opposition feared that this law would further the license of the State to suppress and curtail more human rights for its own good. It is politics, again. And the State is on top of things with its immense power at its disposal. As President Arroyo warned in her 2007 State of the Nation Address, “From where I sit, I can tell you, a President is always as strong as she wants to be.” It sounds like more trouble and danger to come for human rights in the Philippines.

Peace and Conflict: Personally, Etymologically, Religiously, and Culturally Speaking

As a single, Catholic, Bicolano, and Filipino male citizen and graduate student, I would present my view on peace and conflict. My narrative of peace and conflict is certainly informed by experiences, and culture/religion. In addition, I would try to find contradiction with our notion of peace and conflict based on my experiences and culture/religion.

Growing up in a rural area, I would illustrate my personal interpretation of peace and conflict in the context of my experiences with my family. For me, peace is being understood by others in the premise that others are also being understood. In my family, tasks or household chores were distributed among siblings when we were still young. Since I am the second youngest in seven siblings, I normally was assigned to do light work like washing dishes and my two older brothers assumed the heavy loads like fetching water, cutting firewood, etc. This distribution and set-up of tasking was clear and made life easy and fun for us. In other words, we were at peace with the situation and each other. However, things were not always like that, and conflict arose when we began to misunderstand each other. In this case, sometimes, I could not wash the dishes because there was not enough water from the jar. Irritated, I could not understand why my older brothers missed to do their work. So, I started not to do my work if there was not enough water. This resolve caused a conflict with my mother who oversaw our performance and overall housekeeping. When she noticed that I had not done my task, she got angry with me. I reasoned that I could not do my task because others failed to do their tasks. Then my mother explained that my brothers were going to school and so, they missed to fetch water. At that point, I understood my brothers and my mother, in turn, understood me. The opening up of communication helped in settling the conflict.

It is worth-noting in this incident that my mother kept the peace in the house. This role could be attributed to the Great Mother or goddess who in the matriarchal monotheism gave and controlled life in the world. However, the institutionalization of marriage and society relegated this role and elevated the patriarchal monotheism.

In the energetic concept of peace, communication is important because peace is relational. Especially in a family system where harmony is very much desired in the relationships, the understanding of peace in this setting could very well be in the concept of energy.

I was born and raised in Bicol region, south of Manila, Philippines. I have my own language, Bikol, apart from the “national” or legislated national language, Filipino or mainly Tagalog language. Peace in Bikol is known as katoninongan. What is interesting in this Bikol word is the word ninong, which literally means godfather. Ninong has a religious underpinning. There is “the clear statement of the Bible that circumcision was given to Abraham, as ‘a sign of the covenant’ (Gen. xvii, 11).” As Catholicism is the dominant religion in the Bicol region, many people are generally exposed to Catholic rituals such as baptism, wedding, and confirmation. These religious rituals assign godfather (ninong) or godmother (ninang) on the baptized child on his/her way to Catholic adult life. The primacy of ninong in the baptism could be traced to its relation to circumcision which is primarily a male experience and seemingly a non-religious ritual which may have connection with “phallic worship, and thus regarded as an offering to the deity of fertility.” However, “St. Thomas holds that circumcision was a figure of baptism: this retrenches and restrains the animal man as that removed a part of his body -- which physical act indicated the spiritual effect of the sacrament (De Sac., Summa, III, Q. lxx, a. 1). He connected the circumcision ritual with the sacrament of baptism, a mundane activity (circumcision) being connected to a divine activity (saving grace through baptism). The circumcision which is exclusive for males may have aided in the rise of male dominance of society, just like the warrior in the hero narratives. Its institutionalization and practice in society put reverence and patronage on the male population who subscribes to it.

Interestingly, I had a ninong on both Catholic baptism and circumcision which were rites of passage for me. Baptism accepted me in the Christian world while circumcision signaled the start of my adult and sexual life. The basic task of a ninong in both occasions is to guide me on the road to this Christian world and adult life. If circumcision prepared me to this adult and sexual life with the guidance of a ninong, then it was very much connected to the concept of peace in relation to fertility. According to my ninong, it is believed that it is unclean and unsafe for a woman to have sexual act with uncircumcised man. It is also believed that sex with uncircumcised man will bear an abnormal child. So to make peace, katoninongan, with women and the potential child who may carry a stigma of being an offspring of uncircumcised father, I underwent circumcision which was witnessed by a ninong who would watch over my adult life. That is probably why ninong is godfather because he functions like a god who gives security. And we know that peace is God in the moral concept of peace.

In relation to this conception of peace with ninong, the concept of conflict in Bikol word makes a lot of sense. Conflict in Bikol is kariribukan, which could be the closest translation is chaos or noise. Bicolanos believe that the world is chaotic for an unbaptized person, either in sacrament or circumcision. So in both rituals (baptism and circumcision), a person is able to have a ninong who will guide him in the midst of chaos to make sense of the chaotic world. Ninong becomes an instrument to prevail over the chaos of this world. Thus, another concept of peace comes into play with ninong giving guidance and making sense of this chaotic world – peace as security. With my ninong on my side, I feel secured about my undertakings in this world because I have the guidance of my ninong. In other words, I find peace with the guidance of my ninong.

The main contradiction I found in this peace with ninong and conflict as kariribukan (chaos) is that the two is not a duality – between good and bad. Peace is not the opposite of but an instrument to confront and transform conflict (chaos) with the help of ninong. The transformation of conflict is in making sense of the whole which leads to understanding of the world. Again, I go back to my personal interpretation of peace as being understood. The contradiction to our notion of peace and conflict as duality or, at times, opposite or rupture of the natural state, makes us revisit the concept of Great Triad of Taoism – heaven, humanity, and earth. A variation of the Great Triad in this case corresponds to Peace, katoninongan, with ninong as god (heaven), understanding (humanity), and conflict or chaos (earth). In this variation, it is conceived that the end of humanity is understanding each other in this chaotic earth with the aid of peace brought about by ninong.