Balay Mindanaw Foundation, Inc.

Kaangayan, Kalambuan, Kalinaw ... sa Mindanaw, sa Pilipinas, sa Kalibutan

Workshop Unites Conflict Parties
By Svenja Schmelcher*
Posted 17 March 2007

Why would representatives from OPAPP, MNLF, MILF, CPP/NPA, CPLA, RPMP and RPMM¹ like to join one workshop?

Whatever reasons the respective groups and the individuals had to join the activity, five out of the seven groups listed above have sent representatives to participate in the workshop on November 30 till December 2, 2006. The workshop, dubbed “Frameworks in Peace Negotiations,” was arranged as part of a series of three exhanges with overseas conflict resolution specialists organised in association with the Comparative Learning Project of Conciliation Resources, London, Indepaz, Colombia and the Center for Integrative and Development Studies at the University of the Philippines. The meeting was hosted by BMFI, a local NGO in Cagayan de Oro that is facilitating and mediating one of the four peace processes in Mindanao. Also, Conciliation Resources is reviewing the experience of the project and is developing and seeking funding for a new continuation of the project.

In 2005 Conciliation Resources (CR) has started a comparative learning project in the Philippines. CR believes “that comparative information on peace processes is an essential resource for effective peacemaking strategies”². The Philippines have long and manifold experiences with armed struggles, resistance and peace processes. And the latter seems to increase instead of decrease. Today the government is facilitating negotiation and mediation processes with six different groups at the same time. Not a lot of governments in this world can claim such diversity. Why this variety and why the long duration of talks but still not one successful and lasting peace agreement?

From the experience of Conciliation Resources, one cause for stuck processes is the old framework the various groups are using. Miriam Coronel-Ferrer and Clem McCartney, resource persons from Conciliation Resources, were explaining that framework in this context is used to refer to the general guiding principles and analysis that define implicitly or explicitly the content, direction and actual practice of the negotiations. Therefore the conference tries to compare and understand the different frameworks of the parties in dispute. This will then help to find alternative arrangements that will satisfy their concerns. The challenge is to open up to a reframing of the conflict³.

Since all of the peace processes in the Philippines have a history of 10 to 40 and more years, the various frameworks are often using the language and concepts of the past. Neither of the conflict parties is looking for new approaches and terms of how to reach their goals. Clem McCartney explained that the focus on frameworks might reveal some major misunderstandings that most of the times stay hidden. Through finding out their own interests and also the interests of the others might help to reframe the issues in dispute. The biggest challenge he sees is to overcome the strong resistance to reframing. Letting go of cherished ideas and the fear of change is very strong in every group. To illustrate this, Dr. Clem McCartney, together with Prof. P. Ramasamy, were reporting on other peace processes in other countries giving examples of how to reframe demands and therefore reframe the whole process. Prof. Ramasamy was, for example, talking about his experiences in the Aceh-Indonesian conflict and the conflict situation in Sri Lanka. He raised questions like how to reframe the idea of independence. He also questioned whether ceasefire is a desirable achievement during a negotiation process or if it is just postponing a problem and giving all parties time to regain strength.

The representatives from OPAPP, MNLF, MILF, CPLA and RPMM were listening carefully. In order to open the discussion on frameworks, each participant had the chance to present his or her own case and the processes they are involved in, revealing lots of details that were new to most listeners. While the so called rebel groups could see that amongst themselves problems and hindrances were sometimes very similar they could start thinking about why this is the case and how to overcome this.

Also, the discussion between OPAPP and the other groups was rich in sharing information. While OPAPP representatives learned about some details of one or the other peace process, including names of individuals who have been connected to the government in the past and were responsible of misguiding processes at some stage or the other, the other groups learned not just about the rules and bureaucracy OPAPP staff is bound to but also about the challenges governments are facing when they try to keep a nation together.

But not just the formal workshop procedure helped to get to know each other, also joint karaoke nights were used to voice opinions. Already the choice of songs could be seen as statements. While one participant sang “Fernando” (ABBA), explaining that they “would do it again, my friend” because the feeling of injustice is still there, a government representative sang “Honesty” (Billy Joel), apologizing for the behaviour of individuals in the past and contributing strongly to the sincerity of this coming together. And the participants were able to laugh together when Sinatra’s “My Way” was sung by all.

The sharing of ideas and visions but also of frustration during the workshop hours and in the evening was an important step in reflecting the past and present and thinking about possible changes in their frameworks in the future. After some discussions, core issues like land and ancestral domain, demobilization and integration, governance and political reform were focused on. Within these topics the participants saw that the frameworks of the conflicting parties were the furthest apart. Just to give an example: while the government is saying that peace talks can only be effective if the other party is demobilized, the other party would say that they only get demobilized if the root causes of the conflict get addressed and settled. If both groups stick to their frameworks, there is no end to the negotiation process in sight.

To single out opposing frameworks like this made the obstacles in the different processes tangible and open for reframing. While this first workshop could only be an eye-opener, it was encouraging to hear that the participants were keen to have a follow-up workshop to really discuss new frameworks. All parties confirmed their eagerness to continue the debate through offering their facilities as the next meeting place.

1
OPAPP = Office of the Presidential Advisor for the Peace Process
MNLF = Moro National Liberation Front
MILF = Moro Islamic Liberation Front
CPP/NPA = Communist Party of the Philippines/National People’s Army
CPLA = Cordillera People’s Liberation Army
RPMP = Rebolusyonaryong Partido ng Manggagawa ng Pilipinas
RPMM = Rebolusyonaryong Partido ng Manggagawa sa Mindanaw


2
http://c-r.org
http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/comparative-learning/index.php

3
Documentation of the “Conference – Workshop on Frameworks in Peace Negotiations” (3rd Comparative Learning Series) - unpublished

*Svenja Schmelcher is a peace worker of the German Development Service assigned at BMFI for two years (2005-2007). She is currently part of the technical staff of the Independent secretariat of the GRP-RPMM Peace Process.