Don't forget the social aspect of the peace agreement

On 27 March 2014, the Philippine government and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) have set the historic and formal signing of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB). Hopes are high, but reality checks won't hurt if we do them right.

Conflict does not necessarily end in the signing of peace agreement. It mainly addresses the political and economic issues of the conflict which are structural in nature and perceived to be the causes of the conflict. What is often overlooked is the underlying social issues of dysfunctional and asymmetric relationships of the groups involved. In the Philippine case, the groups involved are divided along ethno-religious lines.

Here, I would like point out three things: 1) as ordinary citizens of the Philippines, we can help in this peacebuilding effort; 2) signs of times are in advanced and matured stages for peacebuilding to take root; 3) importance of intergroup trust in the consummation of the peace agreement.

As ordinary citizens, whether Christians or Muslims or non-believers, as Filipinos or peace-loving people, we have a stake in this historic moment. Peace in Mindanao means peace to the whole Philippines. As our saying goes, "Ang sakit sa kalingkingan ay ramdam ng buong katawan" (The pain of the small finger is felt by the whole body). To paraphrase, if parts of Mindanao get burnt, the whole Philippines is in pain. Thus, we must take an active stance on this peace agreement.

Signs of times related to intergroup relations are favorable to this agreement to take hold. For example, in August 2012, the first Muslim newscaster appeared on a Manila-based national television wearing a hijab and traditional ethnic dress to project her ethno-religious identity. Later that year, the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro was signed paving the way for the historic signing of CAB along with pertinent and detailed Annexes of the agreement. These incidents are indications of attempts to ease and end the conflict.

However, any attempts to end the conflict through formal peace agreement must be backed by social understanding of the situation. What is the evaluation on the integroup relations? How do Christian and Muslim ethnic groups interact and deal with each other? Are they willing to be friends or neighbors? Can they allow an out-group to hold power?

In our study, Ethno-religious groups, identification, trust and social distance in the ethno-religiously stratified Philippines (Abanes, Scheepers & Sterkens, 2014), people's unwillingness to make contact with out-groups, as measured by social distance, is low. Generally, Filipinos tend to be less socially distant from their religious out-group. We found out that what explained this low social distance between ethno-religious groups is trust. When Christians and Muslims trust each other, they are less likely to oppose religious out-groups to be their friends, neighbors, or to hold power such as police, civil servant, and mayor. With trust, they are more likely to accept their religious out-groups. Without trust, social barriers and issues may emerge to block any progress towards that elusive peace, even with the peace agreement in place.

Let this historic moment, 27 March 2014, be an opportunity for the groups involved in theconflict to build an inclusive Philippine society of which Bangsamoros and other ethno-religious groups are all part.

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.

Conflict Resolution Tools

Let us talk about stalemate and de-escalation of conflict.

There are 5 reasons why conflicts stop escalating; first, one party overwhelms the other and other yields; second, one party is able to take unilateral advantage of the other; third, two parties avoid further conflict; fourth, a powerful party imposes a settlement; fifth, two parties cease fighting and negotiate for settlement.

When the situation reaches a level where two parties perceives that continuing the conflict will not take them anywhere and will be risky and costly, that is perceived stalemate. Again, there are reasons why the parties perceive this way; 1) contentious tactics fail and simply lose their bite; 2) resources necessary to carry out further conflict are exhausted; 3) parties lose some social support or constituencies/backers; 4) costs and risks are so great that both parties conclude that escalation must be avoided.

This perceived stalemate is subjective. But it serves as benchmark in the analysis and attempt to resolve the conflict. Therefore, the recognition of stalemate depends heavily on the skill of a conflict analyst.

Let’s go to de-escalation. How does it start? Well, there must be an acceptance from the party that the other is an interdependent partner in the endeavor for peace. One should regard the other as necessary devil to contend with. This opens the door for negotiation. One must also have optimism of success which may be anchored on working trust.

From de-escalation, how can negotiation move forward? There are 3 approaches to this. 1) contact and communication allow parties to explain the actions done which will lead to understanding of each other, 2) cooperation on other issues or having superordinate goals that are common to parties, 3) unilateral conciliatory initiatives do not require the acquiescence of the other but it simply reach out to build trust.

Problem solving is a challenge to find a mutually acceptable resolution. Structurally, problem solving can be compromise and integrative solutions. Simply put, compromise is an agreement to concede on the middle ground from the two incompatible goals and interests. Integrative solutions, however, reconcile the goals and interests of each party.

There are 5 types of integrative solutions. 1) expanding the pie means increasing the available resources 2) non-specific compensation refers to the situation where one party gets what it wants while the other is compensated for other means, 3) logrolling describes a situation when each party concedes on issues based on its priorities, 4) cost-cutting points to a situation where the party gets what it wants and the cost of other’s want is reduced or eliminated, 5) bridging is about reframing the issue – new options are put forward to satisfy the underlying interests of both parties.