Appeals to the government and to the MILF to go back to negotiations are increasing, both inside the country and internationally. Mindanao is facing a humanitarian crisis that can only be stopped if arms silence and dialogue prevails. Nobody is gaining anything from the current situation, everybody is losing. Specially the ordinary civilians.

Appeals to the government and to the MILF to go back to negotiations are increasing, both inside the country and internationally. Mindanao is facing a humanitarian crisis that can only be stopped if arms silence and dialogue prevails. Nobody is gaining anything from the current situation, everybody is losing. Specially the ordinary civilians.

The parties have insisted that they are not at war and that they are willing to resume talks, but they have expressed some conditions for a come-back to happen. The government has announced it wants “authentic community dialogues” and it wants DDR (disarmament, demobilization and reintegration). The MILF has argued that they have lost confidence in the government and that they would require increased international presence in the peace process as a guarantee that the parties will keep to their commitments.

These conditions are not really a problem. Before this point raises eyebrows, let me explain. Provided there is enough political will, they are not mutually exclusive demands but, on the contrary, good and complementary suggestions for helping the process move forward.

Peace negotiations tend to be secretive and limited to the parties in confrontation. It may well have to be so in some cases or, more precisely, at some specific moments of a peace process. But the legitimacy of any agreement that may be achieved and the success of its implementation are heavily dependent on broad social and political support. In other words, the badly needed peace constituency might emerge and be strengthened if people are given the opportunity to learn about what is being discussed and to have their voices heard. Otherwise the ground is prone for spoilers to spread rumors and arguments that spur prejudices and mistrust instead of hope and commitment.

The Philippines has one of the most innovative and comprehensive experiences in the world of building consensus for a peace-policy: the National Unification Commission, established by President Ramos in 1992. After 10 months of broad consultations with all sectors of society, including rebel groups and armed forces, it came up with a set of recommendations called the Six Paths to Peace. This framework is still a basic pillar for current and future peace talks. With that experience in mind, wouldn’t it be a good time for an independent set of people and groups to conduct consultations that may help overcome prejudice and instead nurture trust in a process and a better future for everybody? As was the case with the NUC, it would need to be a politically diverse group. Their mandate should ideally be determined together by the government, MILF and several stakeholders, and they should have time enough to design and implement a comprehensive process.

The second condition –DDR- doesn’t need to be a contentious one either. In fact lessons learned from other peace processes show that despite implementation will not happen until after the signing of the final compact, discussions should start in an earlier stage in order to prepare for an issue that is highly complex and sensitive. DDR is actually a confidence-building measure both for the parties in conflict and towards public opinion in general. It therefore needs to be handled with caution. If the right entry-point for its discussion is found it may strengthen the process significantly. Nevertheless, if not handled properly, it may become a new stumbling block in the road to peace.

Actually one of the consequences of agreeing on a DDR process is an increased role for the international community (the third condition). DDR is an expensive, complex, and politically sensitive issue that more often than not requires international support in terms of funding and technical assistance. The parties can also ask the internationals as a neutral third party to provide the process with increased guarantees of commitment and even with some power of arbitration. Malaysia, Brunei, Libya and Japan are already contributing significantly. Others could join. The President recently mentioned at the UN General Assembly that “through global engagement with the largest possible international involvement (…) we are confident that peace will happen.” She mentioned the UN and countries from the Middle East and the European Union, among others. I would add ASEAN and the World Bank to that list.

To sum up, the three topics that have been identified by the conflicting parties in order to resume talks –community dialogues, DDR, and international guarantees- could become very helpful tools for putting political talks back on track. Obviously other issues would need to fall in as well. First of all an agreement to immediately stop the violence and the humanitarian crisis; and of course the highly contentious issue of the MOA. But any progress needs renewed relationships and trust. Framing the proposed initiatives as suggestions instead of conditions would be a strong symbolic step for moving forward.

Kristian Herbolzheimer is Research Fellow of IID. He can be reached through kherbolz at gmail.com