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.

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

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

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

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

Apocalypse Now: Parallelisms Revealed in the Film

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

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

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

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

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

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

Innocent Voices of conflicts: Childrens' muted cry

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

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

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

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

G.I. Jane Story: Losing femininity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-Pity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peace and Justice in a prolonged war: Sierra Leone case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigmund Freud's Psychology of War

Sigmund Freud responded to the question, "Is there any way of delivering mankind from the menace of war?" In principle, violence resolves man to man conflict. In the beginning, brute force was implemented to resolve
conflicts. Then some improved adjuncts were developed and replaced brute force to prevail in the conflicts. These were under the primitive conditions of man.
In groups, superiority comes with numbers and common sentiments of community prevail over the less in numbers and less integrated. Conflicting interests cause man to wage war. Is this fervor to wage war inherent in man? That is the basic question posed by Freud in the essay.

Freud invoked instincts to explain the phenomenon. He gave two kinds of human instincts; those that conserve and those that destroy. Instincts that conserve are those that care and show benevolence and love to live on. He equated this instinct with sex, of course. On the other hand, instincts that destroy are those that kill and show aggression to end or maim life. This second kind of human instincts is the responsible for the war thinking of man. However, Freud did not present these two instincts as mutually exclusive. There are situations that both instincts are operative, blending together in human actions and reactions. Thus to suppress these instincts is unlikely.

However, to prevent wars, man can divert these aggressive instincts to some channels that show care and love. Religion has also used this diversion when the Bible says, "love your neighbor as yourself, " or "love your enemies." These are attempts to turn the aggressive instincts to the other side which cares for man. Another proposition to prevent war is to subordinate instinctive life into a community life reigned by reasons or laws. This is where the State can play a role in establishing peace and order in society.

Freud stated that man has abominable sentiment against war. He explained that war destroys life with which every man has a right over it. War destroys life with its promises and potentials.

Cultural development, according to Freud, has a role to play in the prevention of war. Culture enhances man''s intellect which masters his instinctive life. Also, culture influences the expression and forms of aggressive impulses within man. It defines the boundaries and borders of accepted actions and reactions. The hope against war and its occurence lies in man''s cultural disposition towards war. Understanding culture can make a stop in man's propensity towards war.

If I were an NGO worker in Afghanistan..

What would I do? There are good things happening in Afghanistan that could be built on. I would not reinvent the wheel, as they say. For now, the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) implemented in multi-ethnic Afghanistan is recognized as viable solution at this moment to keep up the fragile status-quo of relative peace. A solution presupposes a problem.

In Afghanistan case, the problem is the "fragile status-quo" of peace situation. The volatility of the situation is described in such a way that a conflict between warring warlords can arise anytime. A viable solution assumes the achievability of the solution by the stakeholders involved especially the US-led forces. Thus, is PRT a viable solution in Afghanistan?

After the fall of the Taliban-regime in Kabul in 2001, the invading US-led forces found Afghanistan packed by warlords who autonomously ruled their own territories with an army of their own. With the Taliban pushed to the margins of Afghanistan but still a threat to security, the US and its allies thought of rebuilding the country on its own feet. Foremost of which was to build an army to secure the population and government to do their daily lives and perform their tasks. Spending billions of dollars to sustain the "fragile status-quo" of peace, the foreign forces trained locals to be part of the national army to replace the foreign forces eventually.

Apart from building an army, the allied forces invited and prepared the leaders of local ethnic groups who happen to be the warlords of a particular area to participate in the political process like election to legitimately rule their own territories under the centralized government. I think the provision of legitimacy to the warlords who have a de facto government in their territory is a good idea. Better yet is the idea of federalizing the territories ruled by warlords to give them more autonomy. Their armies would be commissioned as security forces in their area while they contribute some forces to the national army.

What are PRTs? They are civil-military units that handle both security and reconstruction matters. To win the hearts and minds of the locals and to show that they are not antagonistic to the locals, these units were
created to respond to the security, social, and infrastructure needs of the locals.

These hybrid units though of the allied forces in Afghanistan generated and posed confusion to the NGOs and local communities. For us NGOs, these PRTs are making the locals confused of who the combatants and NGO workers are. The distinctions become blurred with PRTs. This confusion puts us, NGO workers, at risk. It is admitted that there are hostile groups to the allied forces. To be identified with the allied forces loses our identity as NGO, neutrality, and independence.

To address the confusion, I think it is important to highlight the NGOs expertise on development process and methodology. One criticism that PRTs face is that development work that they do is NOT their field of expertise. NGO workers can separate themselves from the PRTs by utilizing the indigenous knowledge and ways of the locals into their work. This is called indigenizing development.

Another tactic is to let the PRTs do the infrastructures projects such as school building, water system, electricity, roads, while the NGOs handle the social projects such as education, health, and livelihood. For example in the field of education, the PRTs can construct school-buildings while the NGOs provide books and materials, and teachers' training and supervision until the local government can assume the responsibility. This division of task and type of projects to implement can expel the confusion between PRTs and NGO workers.

On top of that, I would demonstrate the traits which make me an NGO worker - approachable, accommodating, neutral, flexible, open, easy to get along with, sociable, good-humored, sincere, etc. These traits would help distinguish me from the PRTs.

I hope these division of projects and traits are enough to keep my life and do what I love doing - serving others.

When I chose to work in Afghanistan, I knew what I was getting into. I was aware of the possible consequences and sacrifices. But because of my vocation and mission to serve others in need, I still decided to work in Afghanistan. This is where I feel my presence is needed most.

Peace in Afghanistan: Is amnesty a viable option?

Last June 2010, the Afghan "peace" jirga discussed the options towards peacebuilding in Afganistan. It was attended by tribal, political, and religious leaders in the traditional Afghan way of settling pressing issues. One of the manifest options was to open up negotiations with Taliban leadership. However, there are many issues before any negotiations can take place. The key sticking point in the negotiation is the presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan. Another is the crimes committed during the nine-year conflict. Amnesty is emerging as a viable option.

Amnesty is not new in Afghanistan.

In March 2007, a revised amnesty bill was signed into law by President Hamid Karzai amidst concerns on the constitutionality of the new law and breach of international human rights commitments of Afghanistan. With the new law, the legal framework in dealing with the past conflicts is set. What does the new law bring to Afghanistan? Does it bring reconciliation?

The new law grants amnesty for war crimes committed during Afghanistan's decades of conflict, but also recognizes victims' right to seek justice. It grants amnesty to groups, but not on individuals who committed war crimes in the pre-2002 conflicts. Individuals may be prosecuted through the initiative and effort of the victims to file charges. Unfortunately, the state is barred by the new law from prosecuting and going after the war criminals without charges from the victims.

The new law also covers the former ruling regime, the Taliban, combatants who are still actively fighting against and remain to be the biggest threat to the present Afghan government. The Taliban commands and exerts considerable influence on certain areas of Afghanistan. Under a weak and fragile government, any elimination of threat is welcome to preserve the existence of that government. Likewise, the law encourages various armed groups to go back to the fold of law and recognize the Afghan constitution and government. Recognition of these armed groups, particularly of the Taliban, of the Afghan constitution enhances the legitimacy of the government to rule the multi-ethnic Afghanistan. Legislators who approved the bill see the new law as the opportunity for and a step toward reconciliation between and among warring groups including the Taliban. This opportunity can be a platform that will eventually foster unity and stability in Afghanistan.

However, the law was passed without controversy and politicking. Taking the cudgel for the ordinary Afghans who are victims of war crimes, human rights groups and the UN mission in Afghanistan did not think that the new
law would sufficiently address the crimes committed by the warlords and their army. Since the burden of prosecution and proof is upon the victims, the possibility of bringing the case to the courts against the warlords-cum-politicians who weld tremendous clout in Afghan society is almost nil. Unless the victims who will bravely stand up against these warlords are given security and protection by either the state or international community, the wheel of justice for the war crimes in Afghanistan will not start rolling. As we know it, justice is a key ingredient in any reconciliation process to take place. It is doubtful then to think that the new law will bring reconciliation in Afghanistan without bringing justice to the victims.

Moreover, giving amnesty to Taliban would exonerate the regime for harboring and supporting the Al-qaida hierarchy after the 9/11 attack. This would not go well with the US rhetoric on its war on terror. The US-led invasion of Afghanistan was an act of the so called preventive self-defense. With amnesty to Taliban, the present Afghan government is somehow condoning the acts of Taliban-regime, and thus sending a wrong message to the US and its war on terror. That is why the conviction and execution of Saddam Hussein were very essential and important to the US to give legitimacy and justification to its invasion in Iraq and war on terror. Pardoning or giving amnesty to Saddam at the expense of reconciliation and unity in Iraq was out of the question to the US government and its politics. The same can be said in Afghanistan. An amnesty to Taliban would not legitimize the invasion of Afghanistan. And for the domestic politics in the US, both invasions and continued presence of the US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are losing public support. This may mean a change in the leadership of the White House later this year.

The UN is resoundingly clear of not giving a blanket amnesty to war crimes. The thing is to empower UN to influence the international and local politics that shapes the national policies including amnesty laws that are crafted supposedly to bring reconciliation and unity in a country, but without giving venues for the victims of war crimes to attain justice.

Children commanders in post-conflict scenario

In conflicts, horrendous crimes are committed. Increasingly in recent conflicts, children commanders and soldiers are being used and ubiquitous in combat encounters. Should children be punished for their crimes committed during conflicts?

I would say that crimes, in whatever forms, should be addressed by a justice system that is credible, fair, and transparent. Regardless of age, gender, class, ethnicity and nationality of the offender, s/he should be brought to a "sense" of justice which entails punishment to the offender. Therefore, children are no exception in this case.

In the context of what happened in Sierra Leone, children commanders committed atrocities during its civil war in the 1990s. Should they be punished? Why? How?

Children commanders should be punished because what they did are heinous crimes. I have no reservation in saying this. Crimes are punishable by national and/or international law. How much more are the crimes of these magnitude and gravity! There should be no exception in addressing these horrendous crimes.

However, the case of children commanders in Sierra Leone merits a number of procedural considerations in addressing their crimes. First, they should not be tried along with the adult commanders and soldiers. Second, a specialized court should be created to hear the cases of these young offenders. This specialized court should be impartial and gain the consent and trust of the offenders. Third, the offenders should be represented by a counsel who has an understanding of child psychology and psychiatry. My concern why I propose this consideration is that by revisiting the dreadful memories of the civil war, it may trigger repulsive behaviors or thoughts from the offenders. These behaviors and thoughts may be incriminating and delay the proceedings.

If I were to act as a counsel in defense of the children commanders, I would argue the following; mandate and jurisdiction of the court, command responsibility, diminished culpability, proportionality of the crimes to the children's capability, and appeal to the tendency to be sympathetic to the children.

The first argument, mandate and jurisdiction of the court to handles such cases, assumes that a specialized court was created for the purpose of hearing these cases. I believe that these cases should not be lodged to an
ordinary court in Sierra Leone since any judge could have been a party to or victim of the civil war. The argument is designed to undermine the court and delay the proceedings. Any delay of the resolution of the cases is a gain for the defense. Still, I think it is important to lay out the source of the mandate and jurisdiction of the court. Without a mandate and jurisdiction, the court has no right to try and confer a resolution to the cases.

The second argument, command responsibility, asserts that these children did not act on their own. They were ordered to do those atrocious acts and they performed their duties as children commanders. It should be the leaders who were responsible for these crimes. If these children did not act on the orders, they would be killed. Kill or be killed, I think the children only chose to keep their lives.

The third argument, diminished culpability, invokes the characteristics of children as actors. It is widely known that children make erratic and irrational actions, can be easily manipulated and are driven by impulsive force. Testimonies of being drugged, kidnapped, trained, and brainwashed can bolster this argument.

The fourth argument, proportionality of the crimes to the children's capability, contends that these children could not do such crimes if they were on their right minds. They were not capable of doing those crimes without a threat and manipulation from the adults.

The fifth argument, appeal to the tendency to be sympathetic to children, draws the judge and court to see the damage of the war to these children. They are also victims of the war. They did not start it. They did not have any intention or motive except not to be killed if they defied orders. Plus, they have barely begun living and yet you will deprive them of their future.

In the end, these arguments, in my view, would not stand in the court to successfully defend what the children commanders did. What these arguments can do is to minimize the punishment that they will get. Because they committed crimes, they should be punished.

Again, these are children commanders who ordered and led other children to commit atrocious crimes. Fot the child soldiers who followed orders, this topic will be discussed in other blog entry.

Revisiting Timor Leste Crisis in 2006: Lessons in Peacebuilding

Ten years after its independence through referendum, Timor Leste is very much like a baby learning to walk on governance and politics arena. Just like a baby, it is susceptible and prone to viruses, missteps and diseases. There is an atmosphere of fragility and volatility of its health condition.

True enough in 2006, Timor Leste experienced a political and social crisis. The immediate cause reported was the dismissal of more than 600 troops in the government's military forces when they deserted their posts and refused to go back to barracks. The desertion of the disgruntled soldiers was sparked by the alleged preferential in the military structure of the Lorosae (easterners) over the Loromuno (westerners). The discrimination was based on the role and contribution in the resistance and revolutionary movement during the Indonesian occupation. The Lorosae significantly played more prominent roles in the revolutionary front than the Loromuno. The socially geographical divide, distinction and identity between the west and east, struggle for fairness and equality of treatment, and share of power in the military structure pushed the soldiers to defy orders, and it cost them their job and the fragile and volatile political situation of their young country.

However, the International Crisis Group believed that the root cause of the crisis could be traced back historically to the earlier days of the Revolutionary Front for the Liberation of East Timor (FRETILIN) between its central committee and Xanana Gusmao, then commander of a guerilla army, FALINTIL. The Group also attributed the crisis to the "poorly implemented demobilization of FALINTIL fighters in 2000 and the creation of defence force" which took some fighters in and left some out, unemployed. Thus when the more than 600 soldiers and police took the streets of Dili, they were with unemployed men and gang members.

Acting as the parent of the young country, the UN created various missions to East Timor since 1999. These mission were UNAMET for the preparation, registration and conduct of referendum in 1999, UNTAET for the administration in the transition period in 1999-2002, UNMISET for building and strengthening structures and institutions toward a functional state in 2002-2005, and then during the crisis, UNOTIL for the political mission to support the development of the institutions in 2005-2006. Under the UN mission in 2001, the decision to have a defence force seemed logical since the external threat posed by TNI (Indonesian army) in the neighboring West Timor was ever-present and imposing. Hypothetically at least, a sizeable force could delay any plan of or actual forced occupation or intrusion by the TNI while the international community is pondering whether to intervene militarily or not to stop the TNI. In the anxious minds of Timorese people and historically speaking, this could be a real scenario and they would not want to be caught flat-footed and unprepared. Besides, the defence force would create jobs for the heroes of the revolutionary front. It was a way of acknowledging their efforts and sacrifices coming to fruition. Understandably, the UN was not against job creation and giving due to the heroes of the young country.

However, the presence of TNI in the borders of Timor Leste was misinterpreted as a threat by an insecure young country like East Timor. I think the TNI was there on the borders to secure itself from mass movement of impoverished Timorese people.

Experiences in the disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of former combatants in other post-conflict countries would help forecast and prevent similar crisis. Some examples would be in Sri Lanka, the Philippines, Afghanistan, Congo, just to name a few. I think the mindset of the conflict or war still lingered in the Timorese soldiers at that time. They thought, as long as the TNI were there as a threat within striking distance, the desire to defend the homeland against the others (TNI) ringed vigorously in the hearts and minds of a capable realist, a true revolutionary. They forgot to consider that the revolution was over and that the UN would not allow a repeat of 1975. Anyway, who would argue and go against a strong-willed decision to have a defence force?

Acting as a parent, the UN could only hope for the best to and support its one of the youngest members. And the worst happened but the UN did not abandon its baby. Its neighbors in Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) also extended their hands for the efforts to make baby steps in the often violent democratization process.

Extrajudicial Killings in the Philippines and the International Community

Now that the Philippines has its new President, it is time that its government acts on the crimes allegedly committed by the past administration such as extrajudicial killings.

Should the international community embodied by the United Nations act on the extrajudicial killings committed by sovereign states'apparatus like the military? How would it act in conjunction with the incoming new government?

I would categorically say YES for two reasons. First, if the past Philippine government failed to prevent the spate of more than 900 extrajudicial killings since 2001 done on its targeted population, the "international community" like the UN should respond by investigating the killings, recommending policy or structural changes to prevent recurrence and perpetuation of the killings, or as a last resort, sanctioning the Philippines as a member-state. Actually, the UN Special Rapporteur on Summary Execution, Philip Alston, released its final report on the extrajudicial killings in the Philippines on November 27, 2007. The main finding of the report is that the Philippine military is behind killings. After the release of the report, there has been a considerable decrease of extrajudicial killings.

Second, if the failure of the Philippine government does not lie on its inability to implement laws and order but on its conscious inaction or complete disregard of the lives and human rights of the victims, the United States (US), Japan and other states can withhold financial, development, and military aid to the Philippine government to bring the case to its attention and express their disgust and opposition on the Philippine government's inaction or disregard to human rights. This withholding of substantial aid can force the Philippine government to act on the killings and improve its human rights record in the watchful eyes of the international community.

Both reasons I presented here do not take away the responsibility of the Philippine government on its people. It is still the Philippine government that is mainly responsible for the enforcement and protection of human rights in the Philippines. It is not my argument that the international community or any state/s should take over another state or intervene militarily without the consent of the affected state. In the case of the Philippines and extrajudicial killings, the magnitude and scale of the human rights violations would not warrant the use of force by external entities to directly stop the killings. It is unimaginable in this case.

However, there are examples where the use of force was used to stop and prevent further violations of human rights. The cases of Kosovo, Rwanda, Somalia, East Timor, and among others, come easily to my mind. The justification of the use of force on these cases lies in the magnitude and scale of human right violations, the breakdown of states responsible for the protection and implementation of human rights, the dire need for humanitarian assistance of the people, and implementation of international law and Geneva protocols. The Kosovo case is an exception to the breakdown of a state since Serbia, a functional and strong state, asserted its sovereignty and jurisdiction over Kosovo and its people.

I would not argue against these examples on the use of force to stop the impunity of gross human rights violations or crimes. The international community should not watch on the sideline the conduct of these horrendous crimes. It should respond and even intervene to stop the execution of these crimes. What I would argue is the use of force applying a concocted argument to stop the same crimes or human rights violations or weapons of mass destruction or collectively known as terrorism. When the US and its coalition used force and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, they justified their acts on the basis of the war on terror. According to their rhetoric, they were preventing acts of terrorism. In the same manner that the international community should not simply watch what was happening in Kosovo and alike, the international community should not just watch the use of force of the US and its coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sadly, I am disappointed in the way the international community has become ambivalent in its response with the use of force or intervention. The international community selects what to, where to, how to, who, and why respond. And its selection is starkly influenced and shaped by the superpowers. Are we then really an international community? Or simply international? What I know about a community is that it supports each other and members are interdependent. In reality, there is dependency of weak states to superpowers. This brings doubt to my mind if the international is really a community, but that will be another paper.

Myanmar and Aid: the Post-Nargis Initiative

On May 2, cyclone Nargis hit Myanmar. It was one of the deadliest natural disasters that ever hit the earth. It is estimated that the destruction claimed more than 100,000 lives and loss of billions of dollars. It also left millions of victims and survivors homeless. It led to the the international community and various aid agencies came rushing to extend assistance to the people of Myanmar. Unfortunately, they have to pas through the ruling military junta who has been in power for decades.

Due to probably the immensity of the destruction and unpreparedness, the military junta was overwhelmed by the extent of devastation and international pressure to allow foreign aid and workers to alleviate the misery of the hundreds of thousands of victims and survivors. The junta was slow in responding to the needs of its own people. It was also reluctant and selective to let the aid and foreign workers enter the country. As more footages and images taken from the hardest-hit areas of the country surfaced, they made international community icluding the aid agencies more determined to pressure the military junta to allow aid and foreign workers into the country.

The US, UK and French ships with aid and helicopters that could bring relief goods and medicines to the hard-to-reach areas. But the military junta sees the ships as military presence of these countries. The junta feels insecure of the entrance of these war ships into its territory. So it did not give a go-signal to these ships to come ashore. However, it did say that any aid was welcome.

The slow, selectiveness and reluctance of the junta caused those against the rule of the junta to politicize the situation. They blamed the junta of the miserable plight of its own people. It was even hinted that the junta might be committing genocide for denying its own people of the aid they desperately needed at that time. The activists and anti-junta jumped on the unfortunate situation and used it to advance their advocacy against the junta. But the junta stood firm on its decision not to receive any aid from the war ships.

In my view, the US, UK and France should understand that the junta is exercising its prerogative to allow or not anyone and anything into its country as a sovereign state. What should have been done by international aid agencies were to ask these warships to unload their goods and give them to accredited organizations that were allowed to operate in the country. This was if they were really sincere of helping the victims of the powerful cyclone. Instead of using the aid for political propaganda and goal, the goods could have been just given to several organizations that were already in the area. I saw there was no need for politicizing the situation because the people were suffering and even dying each day that they withhold those aid.