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.