Talking—and building—peace

In the course of my interview with lawyer Alex Padilla, chair of the government panel in the peace negotiations with the National Democratic Front, one of the things he wished for was that “the Filipino people take up the cause of peace.” If there is at present a deadlock in the talks, he said, “I hope the public itself, perhaps through civil society groups, will exert pressure on both the government and NDF panels to keep talking and move on from the present stalemate.”

Succinctly, “the public should make known their demand for peace,” demanding what Padilla called “no-nonsense talks” that will genuinely bring an end to the armed conflict, and not talks designed to simply buy time while one side seeks to build up its forces, and the other seeks a more effective strategy.

In a statement issued on the occasion of the recent “International Day of Peace,” Padilla’s panel called on all to “reclaim peace as our common birthright—young, elderly, middle-aged; poor farmers, displaced indigenous peoples, bereft urban poor—everyone without exception.”

Four decades of the armed conflict with the New People’s Army, said the statement, “(have) left tens of thousands of recorded deaths, roughly half of these civilians caught in the crossfire. Collateral damage is the clinical term which cannot begin to describe the tearing asunder of persons, families, villages, our body politic. Women, children, our lolas and lolos suffer most because they are the most vulnerable. And youth are the first victims of war and the first fruits of peace.”

But to bring an end to decades-old conflict, “we must honor peace as a wellspring—of our hope, our faith, our aspirations.” Still, the statement reminds us, while “peace is a ground from which all blessings flow,” it must be “whole and not piecemeal. Peace without justice and development is false peace, fleeting and reversible. Peace must be anchored on social reforms.”

* * *

It just so happens that I have come from a brief visit to Cambodia where, while the talk was supposed to have centered on the “Asian Century,” or the immediate future where Asian nations will lead the charge toward prosperity and greater openness, peace and conflict resolution were very much on the agenda.

Perhaps the setting had a lot to do with shaping the contents of the meetings. Cambodia itself is only now recovering from the terrible effects of the genocide launched by the forces of Pol Pot against their own people. Most Cambodians today lost some, if not all, members of their family to what has come to be known as “The Killing Fields.” Political turmoil followed the invasion by Vietnamese forces which drove out the Khmer Rouge, but today Cambodia enjoys a stable regime with an elected parliament, even if, in the words of critics, its brand of democracy remains wanting.

But Cambodia has also established a tribunal not just to exact punishment from torturers and killers, but also to honor the victims and underline the value of truth, justice and reconciliation. As a consequence, Cambodia is a nation on the move, with many visible symbols in its capital Phnom Penh of its rapid leap to prosperity.

* * *

AMONG those present at the international forum on the “Asian Century,” co-sponsored by the Royal Academy of Cambodia and the Centrist Asia Pacific Democrats International (Capdi), of which former Speaker Jose de Venecia is president and chief executive, was former Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Clearly, everyone present expects Thaksin to return to power, now that his youngest sister Yingluck won the recent elections and emerged as Thailand’s new prime minister. But even when asked directly about what new policies he would adopt “if he was prime minister,” Thaksin demurred and said he was sure his sister would make her own decisions.

Then he turned wistful, noting that among all those officials past and present from around Asia at the head table, “I am the only one who cannot return to his own country when this is over.” Thaksin’s sentence (by a Thai court) is said to expire by May next year, but he insists that all he wants to do once he returns to Thailand is resume his businesses.

But the years spent in exile have done him good, said Thaksin, noting that it gave him the chance to “go around the world, observing developments and giving advice to those who seek it.”

As for the political upheavals that have recently rocked Thailand, and the success at the polls of his party despite the coup and harsh crackdowns, Thaksin points out that it boils down to “a conflict between those who believe in democracy and those who believe in dictatorship.”

* * *

STILL, De Venecia, speaking about the establishment of an “Asian Peace and Reconciliation Council,” was optimistic that an elders’ council of past and present leaders could yet bring “Yellow Shirts” and “Red Shirts” in Thailand to an agreement. This task, he noted, he regards as “our Council’s initial test (of) how helpful it can become.”

And not just Thailand. De Venecia, bringing his stature as a respected regional figure to the fore, spoke of the opportunities for peace opened up by the “Arab Spring” and the many successful peaceful transitions not just in Cambodia and Thailand but also in Indonesia (with Aceh and East Timor), Sri Lanka, Nepal, and soon perhaps in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Indeed, said De Venecia, if the 21st century is indeed the “Asian Century,” “our internal conflicts—if they should continue—can frustrate this hope. So our greatest need is for our entire continent to rise above its conflicts.”

As it is in the rest of Asia, so with the MILF and NDF?