Let Us Make Peace

Statement of Dean Marvic M.V.F. Leonen
Chair, GRP Panel in Talks with the MILF

National Solidarity Conference for Mindanao
August 13, 2010, UP Hotel
Quezon City

Thank you for inviting me and providing the space to be able to address the topic that has been assigned to me and other issues in relation to the current peace talks.

It is always a relief to be among friends who share a passion for the same kind of peace. I expect that you will always be candid. That without any prodding, you will give feedback or share suggestions. I have no doubt that all this will be given with a lot of sincerity and urgency and always within a keen sense of history and context. That is why I have continued to respect your efforts.

Years ago, the challenge for both negotiating parties to consider, was stated simply by the MILF as: how to solve the Bangsamoro problem. This still is the most important question to address. We are however more fortunate than past negotiating panels in several respects.

There have already been significant steps taken, not only in the understanding of what inspires this question, but also in terms of clarifying the question further into more specific queries that the parties must address. Further, we have had significant political experience--on both sides--to draw up the kinds of solutions necessary to address this problem.

My direct principal, the incumbent President of the Republic of the Philippines--unlike his predecessor--now enjoys an overwhelmingly fresh mandate from the Filipino people. He was swept into power by citizens who not only wants him to redress the wrongdoings of the past, but also to learn from why these happened. In a speech delivered on April 22, 2010 at the Peace and Security Forum at the Mandarin Hotel, the President acknowledged that the lack of peace in Mindanao is the result of a “deeper systemic problem”. This was exacerbated by the former administration that “merely paid lip service to the quest for true peace, security and progress.” In his words:

“For close to a decade, the present administration has wasted opportunities to resolve our internal conflicts and move this nation forward. Instead it exploited the conditions spawned by the internecine conflict for political gain. It chose to coddle warlords willing to deliver command votes come election time rather than arrest them and implement the law.

“The rejection of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) has taught valuable but costly lessons to the advocates of peace.

“(a) The absence of a clear national policy and coherent strategy for peace negotiators led to confusion and false expectations across the table.

“(b) The negotiations were done secretly and without involving the views of key stakeholders whose futures depend on the ‘promise of Mindanao’

“(c) Moreover, negotiations were done in haste to meet deadlines set to gain ‘brownie points’ from an expectant international community.

“(d) The result was a patchwork of provisions in a document that caused greater division than unity.”

Thus, his policy statement that:

“We must revive the peace process on the basis of a comprehensive understanding of the root causes of the conflict, under clear policies that pave the way ahead, and driven by a genuine desire to attain a just and lasting peace.”

“We shall endeavor to restore confidence in the peace process that is transparent and participative, and renew our faith in our shared vision of a peaceful, secure and prosperous future under one sovereign flag.”

The most significant points made by the President should be underscored.

First, the peace process should happen “on the basis of a comprehensive understanding of the root causes of the conflict,”

Second, that it should be conducted under “clear policies that pave the way ahead, and driven by a genuine desire to attain a just and lasting peace.”

Third, that there should be a restoration of “confidence in the peace process that is transparent and participative”, and

Fourth, that we envision a “peaceful, secure and prosperous future under one sovereign flag.”

Fears have been recently expressed on three things: that we will be insisting that we (1) start from scratch; (2) localize the talks; and (3) replace the current facilitator of the talks. They say that these will “delay or even imperil the peace talks.”

We do not intend to start from scratch.

To even imply that we have even considered this possibility is to underestimate the political sense and historical understanding of the negotiators that have already been named and of this entire administration. Our marching orders are to move forward and to move forward with due deliberation and sincerity. This is a new administration with an overwhelmingly fresh mandate from the electorate. It is expected of us to review with due diligence all the agreements that have been signed. This does not mean that we will reject them--it only means that we are in the process of increasing our understanding of the implications and meanings of the provisions. In this regard, we are not limited in our review to the agreements that were signed. We have read government’s internal reports and are receiving briefings from the relevant personalities. Soon, we will proceed to review the official minutes of the negotiations of the past nine years.

More importantly, we seek to assess how we can more effectively and efficiently comply with the obligations that have been committed by the past administration.

I confirm the observation of Al Haj Murad Ebrahim, Chairman of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, that the ground situation is still acceptable. We are particularly pleased by reports that the International Monitoring Team and the other mechanisms are working satisfactorily. Even as we continue to review, we have honored our commitments that are necessary to provide for security, civilian protection and rehabilitation on the ground. This includes commitment of personnel as well as the proper budgetary allocations.

In the Aquino administration, a just, meaningful, comprehensive and durable peace is a major policy platform. Contrary to some naysayers from the past administration who continue to speculate based on their fears and inadequacies, the agenda is not simply counter-insurgency. Contrary to misreadings of alleged statements made from our military, there are no plans for a total war solution.

Soon enough, we will be ready to clarify our affirmation of the other agreements. If we are true to our word that we should only commit to what we can deliver, then we also need to do proper consultation and verification. To deliver means meeting the costs of that commitment--both financial and political.

The current peace talks address a domestic situation with international interest. Where the actual conversation takes place should be a function of where both parties are most comfortable. Where any negotiation takes place should facilitate discussion, it should not dominate the conversation. Like the MILF, we hope that this does not become an obstacle to reaching the more important goal of achieving a politically negotiated settlement.

We are specially appreciative of the various embassies that have visited us this past month. We acknowledge their willingness to continue to support the peace process We also acknowledge their recognition of the sovereignty of the Filipino people and territorial integrity of this Republic.

While expressing our utmost appreciation for all the international actors--state and non-state--that have come to share their time and other resources; we think it is legitimate for a new administration to review whether the current deployment is in harmony with its understanding of the national interest. There is a realpolitik in international relations. Also, good intentions notwithstanding, too many international actors can work at cross purposes to each other when located within a single ground. International interest and assistance is welcome, but it is we who will have to make sure that they facilitate rather than--unwittingly--deter an agreement.

We are eager to start talks on the one substantive agenda: the comprehensive compact. We are aware of the drafts exchanged by the parties on January 27, 2010. We will build on three realities: first, that the MILF has expressed that it has dropped its option for independence--that it is not negotiating for independence, but the highest form of autonomy; second, that the submissions of the parties (with Arroyo administration as the other party) are currently poles apart; and third, our mandate as framed by the President. We note that the MILF has rejected certain forms of “enhanced autonomy” and has proposed the idea of a establishment of a “state-sub-state form of governance in a future Bangsamoro state.”

The MILF should understand that we represent the government of the Republic of the Philippines. This includes many peoples and identities. This includes many stakeholders represented by various groupings. The MILF should also understand that our actions are measured against the framework of a Constitution--a constitution which, to my mind, provides space to find a political settlement including, if necessary and acceptable to all, a process of amendment and revision. I do not see the Constitution as a problem. I view it as a reality that we should deal with and should also be considered in finding the solution.

However, any good negotiator knows that attention to the process of the negotiation is as important as the substance of the conversation. We do not want the process to drive the substantive agenda. We want the process to facilitate it. And the process includes the levels of comfort that both negotiating parties have in relation to the parameters of the talks. It should include clear terms of reference that covers matters like the nature of the third party’s participation, protocols in communication, the setting of the agenda, sharing of the minutes of meetings, possibilities for direct conversations between the parties, role of international actors, among others.

Hence, I do not think that this new administration and this newly appointed negotiator can be faulted if we seek to review the terms of reference of the facilitation of the past discussions. I do not think that it is unwise for us to assess, based on the experience of the past panels and secretariats, whether we can be comfortable with the current facilitator. From our present understanding of what transpired towards the end of the past administration, this was even expected by the current facilitator. We would have thought that this would be welcomed by the other party and by the current facilitator (and the state to which she or he belongs), considering that it should show that we are sincere and professional in our tasks.

The challenge to the current administration is whether it has the creativity and political will to effect the necessary changes. The challenge to the MILF is whether it can be open, as creative and have the same political will to effect any agreed upon solution. The challenge to you is how you can engage constructively; and how you could help us meet the problems hurled by those who do not wish to engage constructively.

Our hand is extended in peace. It is extended consciously and deliberately. A hand extended in peace is a hundred times stronger and a million times more courageous than one than picks up a gun. Do not doubt the sincerity of this administration. Do not doubt my sincerity.

Take it, and let us make peace happen. Immediately.