Peace is not merely the absence of armed conflict. It is
an environment where individuals and communities are able to fully
develop their potentials and progress, freely exercising their rights
with due regard for the rights of others, and equally mindful of
their responsibilities. It is a state where there is no government
graft and corruption; where the people are given their due; where
there is growth, progress and sustainable development; where there is
alleviation of the poor living conditions of the people; where
justice, equity, freedom and truth reign.
*[1]
This definition of peace is based on the outcome of a national public
consultation in the Philippines organized by the former National
Unification Commission, a government-created body.
It is clear from this formulation that there cannot be peace unless
the causes of the ills of society (that of the Philippines in this
case) are addressed, namely: maldevelopment (few rich, massive
poverty), human rights abuses, ineffective government, and
environmental degradation.
It is thus correct to have a comprehensive peace process in order to
arrive at a state of peace in the Philippine context where armed
conflicts had vigorously raged for years. 55,471 soldiers, government
officials, members of the armed opposition and innocent civilians
have died from 1973 to 1992. 1,832 persons are missing. 1.5 million
people have been displaced over the two-decade conflicts. Damage to
crops and properties since 1982 is estimated to have reached around
55 million US dollars.
*[2]And these are not the final figures.
The Philippine government launched a two-pronged process to attain
peace: comprehensive peace process and the social reform agenda.
Peace talks are on-going as far as the Communist Party of the
Philippines-New PeopleO~s Army-National Democratic Front (with one
faction at least) and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. Peace
agreements had been sealed with the Moro National Liberation Front
and the Reform the Armed Forces Movement-Young Officers Union-ALTAS
(the military rebel group). The social reform agenda is the package
of interventions which the government will pursue to ensure the
welfare and early integration of disadvantaged groups into the
political and economic mainstream. It is meant to address four
dimensions of poverty: social equity, economic growth, ecological
balance, and responsible and responsive governance. Executive orders
have been issued to implement some of the demands of the peopleO~s
organizations and non-governmental organizations which participated
in national conferences organized by the government.
*[3]
It should be noted that these initiatives on peace fall within the
over-all economic development framework of the Philippine government
known as Philippines 2000! It is the blueprint for the Philippines to
reach the so-called NIC-hood by the turn of the century. A tall order
indeed.
With an economic development program significantly anchored on
foreign investment, rapid and simultaneous implementation of various
projects (energy, transportation, industrial-residential-commercial
purposes) are being undertaken. With the active involvement of the
private business sector (both domestic and foreign) in all these
projects, can social reform agenda compete? Will there be social
infrastructures that can help realize the principle of people
empowerment in development before and during the implementation of
the projects? Will the government be able to address the social
inequities that result from the negative effects of rapid private-led
development? In sum, will business wait for the social reform
agenda?
These are questions begging for answers.
In the National Anti-Poverty Summit held in March 1996,
recommendations from the farmers and fisherfolk sectors call for
review/revision of the main economic development plan (Philippines
2000!) of the government because it puts at risk their economic
security, the ecological balance, and their right to participate in
the processes of development.
There is a clear statement from the non-governmental and people's
organizations about the cost of the type of development that the
government espouses. In their view the essential goal of social
reform agenda, the very tool for peace, will be subverted by the
well-resourced private-led development program unless the government
steps in and faithfully follow the definition of peace it has agreed
to.
The idea of lasting, just and comprehensive peace is difficult to
attain and yet it is the only option that should be pursued.