Tuesday, March 16, 2010
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - Philippines
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Friday, March 5, 2010
GRP, MILF peace negotiators meet in KL; remain deadlock on approach
The peace negotiators of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) held a one-day question-and-answer session in the Malaysian capital of Kuala Lumpur Thursday, March 4.
After the traditional opening remarks from the Parties especially by Datuk Othman bin Abdurazak, the Malaysian country facilitator, the two Parties remained poles apart in their positions contained in their respective draft on the comprehensive compact, which embodies the negotiated political solution to the centuries-old Moro question in Mindanao. The government stuck to its reformist approach of resolving this problem through executive orders, legislative measures, and the promise to undertake constitutional changes, while the MILF consistently argued for a negotiated settlement with the Parties, which, after signing the compact, will entail the reconfiguration of the totality of relationships between Filipinos and Moros necessitating processes or measures in compliance with their commitments or obligations.
The session, however, focused mainly on the MILF new draft designed to be signed as interim agreement to preserve the gains of the peace process, among other matters, and from which the next Filipino administration will pick up and continue the peace process.
By way of a PowerPoint presentation, the MILF explained its new 7-page draft, which is an extract from its 38-page draft on comprehensive compact presented to the GRP Peace Panel, copy furnished to all members of the International Contact Group (ICG) during the 17th GRP-MILF Exploratory Talks last January 27-28, 2010. After the presentation, the GRP Peace Panel was asked by the facilitator to ask questions, which they did starting from around 10:00am and continued to the afternoon. Subsequently, members of the ICG also asked questions after the facilitator relaxed the rules in view of the ICG status as observer during meetings of the Parties. It has become a norm that the ICG could also ask for special session with the Parties jointly or separately, as what they did in previous meetings.
“We were practically grilled for day-long,” said one MILF peace panel member, who did want to be identified.
After the meeting, GRP Peace Panel chairman Ambassador Rafael Seguis, along with Secretary Nasser Pangandamen, was overheard to have said: “Now we understand the MILF view or perspective.”
The GRP peace delegation was headed by Ambassador Seguis, and accompanied by Sec. Nasser Pangandaman, Dr. Ronald Adamat, Atty. Mariano Sarmiento, Atty. James Kho, Ryan Mark Sullivan, Zoilo Velasco, and Jennie Laruan. The MILF five-man delegation is as follows: Mohagher Iqbal, Chairman; Atty. Michael Mastura; Maulana Alonto; Antonio Kinoc; and Jun Mantawil.
Members of the ICG both representing states and international non-government organizations (INGOs) are as follows: Ambassador Boyd McCleary and Christopher Wright, United Kingdom; Hitoshi Ozawa and Kei Ischikawa, and Naoki Hikota of Japan; Yasin Temizkan of Turkey; David Gorman of the Center for Humanitarian Dialogue; Dr. Steven Rood and Herizal Hazri of the Asia Foundation; and Sudibyo Markus and Rudi Sukandar of Muhammadiyah of Indonesia. Absent from the ICG–INGOs were representatives from the London-based Conciliation Resources.
After the traditional opening remarks from the Parties especially by Datuk Othman bin Abdurazak, the Malaysian country facilitator, the two Parties remained poles apart in their positions contained in their respective draft on the comprehensive compact, which embodies the negotiated political solution to the centuries-old Moro question in Mindanao. The government stuck to its reformist approach of resolving this problem through executive orders, legislative measures, and the promise to undertake constitutional changes, while the MILF consistently argued for a negotiated settlement with the Parties, which, after signing the compact, will entail the reconfiguration of the totality of relationships between Filipinos and Moros necessitating processes or measures in compliance with their commitments or obligations.
The session, however, focused mainly on the MILF new draft designed to be signed as interim agreement to preserve the gains of the peace process, among other matters, and from which the next Filipino administration will pick up and continue the peace process.
By way of a PowerPoint presentation, the MILF explained its new 7-page draft, which is an extract from its 38-page draft on comprehensive compact presented to the GRP Peace Panel, copy furnished to all members of the International Contact Group (ICG) during the 17th GRP-MILF Exploratory Talks last January 27-28, 2010. After the presentation, the GRP Peace Panel was asked by the facilitator to ask questions, which they did starting from around 10:00am and continued to the afternoon. Subsequently, members of the ICG also asked questions after the facilitator relaxed the rules in view of the ICG status as observer during meetings of the Parties. It has become a norm that the ICG could also ask for special session with the Parties jointly or separately, as what they did in previous meetings.
“We were practically grilled for day-long,” said one MILF peace panel member, who did want to be identified.
After the meeting, GRP Peace Panel chairman Ambassador Rafael Seguis, along with Secretary Nasser Pangandamen, was overheard to have said: “Now we understand the MILF view or perspective.”
The GRP peace delegation was headed by Ambassador Seguis, and accompanied by Sec. Nasser Pangandaman, Dr. Ronald Adamat, Atty. Mariano Sarmiento, Atty. James Kho, Ryan Mark Sullivan, Zoilo Velasco, and Jennie Laruan. The MILF five-man delegation is as follows: Mohagher Iqbal, Chairman; Atty. Michael Mastura; Maulana Alonto; Antonio Kinoc; and Jun Mantawil.
Members of the ICG both representing states and international non-government organizations (INGOs) are as follows: Ambassador Boyd McCleary and Christopher Wright, United Kingdom; Hitoshi Ozawa and Kei Ischikawa, and Naoki Hikota of Japan; Yasin Temizkan of Turkey; David Gorman of the Center for Humanitarian Dialogue; Dr. Steven Rood and Herizal Hazri of the Asia Foundation; and Sudibyo Markus and Rudi Sukandar of Muhammadiyah of Indonesia. Absent from the ICG–INGOs were representatives from the London-based Conciliation Resources.
GRP insists on the ‘inside the box’ approach
(Speech of Mohagher Iqbal, Chairman of the MILF Peace Panel, during the Question-and-Answer Session in Kuala Lumpur on March 3, 2010)
Thirty four days ago today, we were here in Kuala Lumpur for a two-day 17th GRP-MILF Exploratory Talks. We exchanged drafts on the comprehensive compact on the first day, on January 27, but on the second day the Parties had never met directly for reason all of us know. The lesson learned here is that the peace negotiation between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), like all similar negotiations, has rules of engagement to follow and agreed agenda to discuss and pursue through to the end.
Right at the start of the GRP-MILF Peace Talks in 1997, we have agreed that the agenda of the peace talks is how to solve the “Bangsamoro Problem”. This problem involves a variety of social, cultural, economic and political issues and concerns. Therefore, the task of the Parties in the negotiation, on the basis of that agreement, is “to find a political and lasting solution to this problem … with the end in view of establishing a system of life and governance suitable and acceptable to the Bangsamoro people.” The Tripoli Agreement on Peace on June 22, 2001 entrenched this further by providing that the negotiation and peaceful resolution of the conflict must involve consultations with the Bangsamoro, free of any imposition in order to provide chances of success and open new formulas that permanently respond to the aspirations of the Bangsamoro people for freedom. If we have that almost impasse of the peace talks last January 28, it is because the GRP has offered to the MILF in its draft comprehensive compact the “old formula” contained in the Republic Act 6734, as amended by 9054, that established the so-called autonomy in Muslim Mindanao. Truth is that the establishment of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) has never been the product of negotiation but a unilateral action of government through legislations or acts of the Philippine Congress. The So-called “enhanced autonomy” as coined by the government is nothing new; it has been offered to the MILF at least three times --- and each time the offer was made the MILF rejected it outright. The first offer was made in May 2000, the second in February 2003, and the third last January 27, 2010. The government also offered federal state to the MILF in April 2005 with the central government having exclusive powers over national defense, foreign relations, coinage and currency, and postal services, but the MILF rejected it simply because the government was not in a position to give it to us.
Let me remind you, Excellencies, the essence of that draft of the GRP has already been contained in existing laws and policies or programs of government like strengthening of the Islamic banking, the Shariah justice system, madaris system, etc. Why do we have to negotiate for something which is already given; and stated more seriously, why do we have to accept something that had already caused the marginalization of the MNLF and the irrelevance of its leaders --- who up to now are waiting for the GRP to comply with the spirit and letter of the GRP-MNLF Final Agreement on September 2, 1996?
If the peace talks is passing through a turbulent zone today --- and on the verge of signing nothing until President Arroyo’s exit on June 30, this year -- it is because the GRP is not very truthful to what is agreed by the Parties at the start of their engagement; i.e., for the MILF not to raise the issue of independence and the GRP the issue of constitution and territorial integrity. Up to now, the MILF has not breached this commitment, and we have declared time and again that the MILF will no longer pursue independence as solution to the Bangsamoro problem in favor of an asymmetrical arrangement of a “state-and-substate” arrangement. An offer of bogus autonomy is no solution at all --- and the MILF will never accept, knowing fully well that our people and the generations yet to come will suffer forever. It appeared crystal clear that the GRP has not changed its “inside the box” approach as far as its reference to its Constitution is concerned, when other states, which also have constitutions, like Sudan, Ireland, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and even Canada, have already succeeded to resolve conflicts in their borders to the satisfaction of the parties. They used their constitutions as vehicles --- and not as obstacles --- to solve their conflicts. As far as the MILF is concerned, the Philippine Constitution is a contested issue. We view this constitution as an instrument of perpetuation of the ruler-and-ruled relationship between the majority Filipinos and minoritized Moros. We have never been part of the decision-making since we were annexed as part of the Republic of the Philippines in 1946. Our part of Mindanao has continued to shrink and shrink, while our natural wealth is being carted away by outsiders without a share of the profit for our people.
In our joint statement on July 29, 2009, the Parties agreed to acknowledge the MOA-AD as an unsigned and yet initialed document and they also committed to reframe the consensus points with the end in view of moving towards the comprehensive compact to bring about a negotiated political settlement. The MILF indeed reframed the consensus points in both its 38-page draft on comprehensive compact and the 7-page paper on the Interim Governance Arrangement, while the GRP is so scared even to mention the word MOA-AD in its draft. Why is this so, after agreeing to that MOA-AD reframing?
I want to prolong this remark but there is time constraint. We have more important task to do this one-day session. But before I end my remark, I want to state here that if some of my statements are blunt and direct, it is not my intention to hurt the feelings of people especially my honorable counterparts from the government headed by Ambassador Rafael Seguis. It is my way of bringing my message as clearly as possible.
Thank you and wassalamu alaikum w. w.
Thirty four days ago today, we were here in Kuala Lumpur for a two-day 17th GRP-MILF Exploratory Talks. We exchanged drafts on the comprehensive compact on the first day, on January 27, but on the second day the Parties had never met directly for reason all of us know. The lesson learned here is that the peace negotiation between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), like all similar negotiations, has rules of engagement to follow and agreed agenda to discuss and pursue through to the end.
Right at the start of the GRP-MILF Peace Talks in 1997, we have agreed that the agenda of the peace talks is how to solve the “Bangsamoro Problem”. This problem involves a variety of social, cultural, economic and political issues and concerns. Therefore, the task of the Parties in the negotiation, on the basis of that agreement, is “to find a political and lasting solution to this problem … with the end in view of establishing a system of life and governance suitable and acceptable to the Bangsamoro people.” The Tripoli Agreement on Peace on June 22, 2001 entrenched this further by providing that the negotiation and peaceful resolution of the conflict must involve consultations with the Bangsamoro, free of any imposition in order to provide chances of success and open new formulas that permanently respond to the aspirations of the Bangsamoro people for freedom. If we have that almost impasse of the peace talks last January 28, it is because the GRP has offered to the MILF in its draft comprehensive compact the “old formula” contained in the Republic Act 6734, as amended by 9054, that established the so-called autonomy in Muslim Mindanao. Truth is that the establishment of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) has never been the product of negotiation but a unilateral action of government through legislations or acts of the Philippine Congress. The So-called “enhanced autonomy” as coined by the government is nothing new; it has been offered to the MILF at least three times --- and each time the offer was made the MILF rejected it outright. The first offer was made in May 2000, the second in February 2003, and the third last January 27, 2010. The government also offered federal state to the MILF in April 2005 with the central government having exclusive powers over national defense, foreign relations, coinage and currency, and postal services, but the MILF rejected it simply because the government was not in a position to give it to us.
Let me remind you, Excellencies, the essence of that draft of the GRP has already been contained in existing laws and policies or programs of government like strengthening of the Islamic banking, the Shariah justice system, madaris system, etc. Why do we have to negotiate for something which is already given; and stated more seriously, why do we have to accept something that had already caused the marginalization of the MNLF and the irrelevance of its leaders --- who up to now are waiting for the GRP to comply with the spirit and letter of the GRP-MNLF Final Agreement on September 2, 1996?
If the peace talks is passing through a turbulent zone today --- and on the verge of signing nothing until President Arroyo’s exit on June 30, this year -- it is because the GRP is not very truthful to what is agreed by the Parties at the start of their engagement; i.e., for the MILF not to raise the issue of independence and the GRP the issue of constitution and territorial integrity. Up to now, the MILF has not breached this commitment, and we have declared time and again that the MILF will no longer pursue independence as solution to the Bangsamoro problem in favor of an asymmetrical arrangement of a “state-and-substate” arrangement. An offer of bogus autonomy is no solution at all --- and the MILF will never accept, knowing fully well that our people and the generations yet to come will suffer forever. It appeared crystal clear that the GRP has not changed its “inside the box” approach as far as its reference to its Constitution is concerned, when other states, which also have constitutions, like Sudan, Ireland, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and even Canada, have already succeeded to resolve conflicts in their borders to the satisfaction of the parties. They used their constitutions as vehicles --- and not as obstacles --- to solve their conflicts. As far as the MILF is concerned, the Philippine Constitution is a contested issue. We view this constitution as an instrument of perpetuation of the ruler-and-ruled relationship between the majority Filipinos and minoritized Moros. We have never been part of the decision-making since we were annexed as part of the Republic of the Philippines in 1946. Our part of Mindanao has continued to shrink and shrink, while our natural wealth is being carted away by outsiders without a share of the profit for our people.
In our joint statement on July 29, 2009, the Parties agreed to acknowledge the MOA-AD as an unsigned and yet initialed document and they also committed to reframe the consensus points with the end in view of moving towards the comprehensive compact to bring about a negotiated political settlement. The MILF indeed reframed the consensus points in both its 38-page draft on comprehensive compact and the 7-page paper on the Interim Governance Arrangement, while the GRP is so scared even to mention the word MOA-AD in its draft. Why is this so, after agreeing to that MOA-AD reframing?
I want to prolong this remark but there is time constraint. We have more important task to do this one-day session. But before I end my remark, I want to state here that if some of my statements are blunt and direct, it is not my intention to hurt the feelings of people especially my honorable counterparts from the government headed by Ambassador Rafael Seguis. It is my way of bringing my message as clearly as possible.
Thank you and wassalamu alaikum w. w.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Advocates convene for HR Forum
Human rights advocates from across the country convened today for a public forum at the University of the Philippines in Diliman to explore perspectives on human rights and the international humanitarian law.
The forum on Republic Act 9851 or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity discussed the emerging issues surrounding the law's implementation.
The forum also explored perspectives from Mindanao where the Maguindanao massacre took place and where civilian women were killed along with lawyers and journalists, and then buried in shallow graves. The massacre catapulted the Philippines as the world's most dangerous country for journalists.
Two speakers from Mindanao who shared their perspectives are Amina Rasul, lead Convenor of the Philippine Council for Islam and Democracy (PCID) and Ruby Rose Lora from the Initiatives for International Dialogue, an advocacy and solidarity institution promoting peace, conflict prevention, democratization and the right to self-determination in Southeast Asia.
“The International Humanitarian Law has a positive implication to the on-going peace process in Mindanao. This law will protect civilians especially in Mindanao where war and armed conflicts have resulted to grave human rights violations,” Lora said.
The International Committee of the Red Cross will also have a session clarifying its role in the implementation of the law. The academe and civil societies such as the Philippine Council for Islam and Democracy, Initiatives for International Dialogue and the International Committee of the Red Cross has been supporting government authorities in their efforts to promote the international humanitarian law. (IID)
The forum on Republic Act 9851 or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity discussed the emerging issues surrounding the law's implementation.
The forum also explored perspectives from Mindanao where the Maguindanao massacre took place and where civilian women were killed along with lawyers and journalists, and then buried in shallow graves. The massacre catapulted the Philippines as the world's most dangerous country for journalists.
Two speakers from Mindanao who shared their perspectives are Amina Rasul, lead Convenor of the Philippine Council for Islam and Democracy (PCID) and Ruby Rose Lora from the Initiatives for International Dialogue, an advocacy and solidarity institution promoting peace, conflict prevention, democratization and the right to self-determination in Southeast Asia.
“The International Humanitarian Law has a positive implication to the on-going peace process in Mindanao. This law will protect civilians especially in Mindanao where war and armed conflicts have resulted to grave human rights violations,” Lora said.
The International Committee of the Red Cross will also have a session clarifying its role in the implementation of the law. The academe and civil societies such as the Philippine Council for Islam and Democracy, Initiatives for International Dialogue and the International Committee of the Red Cross has been supporting government authorities in their efforts to promote the international humanitarian law. (IID)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
