|
Balay Mindanaw Foundation, Inc. |
|
Kaangayan, Kalambuan, Kalinaw ... sa Mindanaw, sa Pilipinas, sa Kalibutan |
| Back to BMG | RCED | KPMFI | BBFI | BDSI | ICPeace |
| Essays | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Transforming Violent
Conflict: [This is one of the essays written by Belle for the course on Applied Conflict Transformation Studies (ACTS). ACTS is a two-year Masters Programme which bridges the gap between academic research and the wealth of experience that is being carried out by peace practitioners’ own place of work. ACTS is being established in three centers – the Balkans (Serbia), Asia (Cambodia) and East Africa (Uganda). Belle had already participated in the 3 modules for the year (2006-2007) with residential workshops being done in Pannasastra University in Cambodia. In between, she has been helping facilitate peace education seminars with the military in Mindanao and at the same time managing a peace center.]
I - Introduction This essay will be based on one chapter of the ACTS (Applied Conflict Transformation Studies) book, Transforming Violent Conflicts. The discussions in Chapter 3 (Fostering Conflict Transformation) are very stimulating to think about and relate them to my present work with the military in exploring peace building. Chapter 3 provides the framework of John Paul Lederach which I think is very critical in the analysis that leads to a more focused approach to work and respond to present and emerging dilemmas or issues confronting peace builders in the military. This essay will also consider some approaches on how to deal with situations of violent conflict, particularly at the large-scale level. Approaches discussed here include the features of social cohesion whose foundation lies in the people that bridge societal divides. Second is the kind of change that should be made in the process of conflict transformation which is positive and founded on the values and vision towards peace. And the third one is the dialogical approach in influencing stakeholders, policies and policy-makers in the military. This paper shares my experience with the like-minded military officers, raise questions for myself, enrich my understanding and hope to improve my learning in human transformation “in the search for ever more effective ways of building peace with justice.” Overall, fostering conflict transformation aims at enhancing our capacity in searching for root causes of conflicts, analyzing systems and understanding the importance of scale and engaging or influencing them to pursue peace works in an effective approach for positive outcomes. II - Fostering Conflict Transformation in the Military Conflict Transformation The vital concept of conflict transformation reveals an important framework that involves a wide scope of building peace, not only ending armed conflict but also resolving the root causes of conflict. And more than just resolving the conflict, conflict transformation ardently promotes structural change.i Indeed conflict transformation (CT) is part of a wider process and even manifested at large-scale political or societal level. But CT does not stop there. More importantly, CT does involve the concerted efforts of various people engaged in the system and structure.ii It is the responsibility of all actors and stakeholders to participate at all levels. If this is so, then it is most possible to transform these systems and structures. This is the rationale behind the recent move of Balay Mindanaw to bring the few military peace advocates to the possibility of engaging their military leadership in our quest for building peace, especially in Mindanao. This initiative of engaging the military at the policy level complements the on-going peace trainings with the military officers and personnel on the ground. While we are strengthening community-based peace building at the ground level, the middle level, where this group of generals and colonels who advocate for peace belong, is now ripe for discussion, participation and dialogue. And later, when they shall have gained confidence to push their proposed actions, then perhaps, for a start, an interaction and dialogue with the military’s highest chain of command will pave the way for a systems change. Mindanao Then and Now For more than four decades, the reality of Mindanao in the southern part of the Philippines has been long and continuous wars, violence and unpeace despite the numerous resources in this island. As a response, the military, in general, has time and again executed clear orders to their subordinates to eliminate or neutralize the “enemies of the state.” Not realizing nor understanding the root causes of these long-time conflicts, most of the time these soldiers, without analyzing the issues by themselves as soldiers traditionally do, are always bound to follow, thus becoming part of the problem. The military now, as it was before over the last 40 years, has always been projecting itself as a war machinery. The Philippine Army alone has 4 infantry divisions in Mindanao, consisting of 46 battalions composed of 640 officers, 22,072 enlisted personnel and 32,593 armed volunteers of the Civilian Armed Forces Geographic Unit (CAFGU).
Fortunately, these past few years, there have already been significant efforts in Mindanao to influence the military and transform it into a peace machinery. Maj. Gen. Raymundo Ferrer, a commanding general of one of the four divisions in the island, is a pioneering soldier who advocates peace building in the military. He has made efforts to educate his men in is division on peace building. Integrating peace trainings into the military’s official trainings -- first in Basilan, then in Lanao and now in Cotabato -- is supported by most of his brigade and battalion commanders. Among them is Col. Raynard Ronnie Javier, who now carries on the peace advocacy in Lanao where he pursues the peace trainings at his own brigade (the 103rd Infantry Brigade) with the help of Balay Mindanaw. Most of these peace trainings contribute to the ongoing peace processes between the Philippine government and the armed Moro groups, as well as with other revolutionary groups who believe that peace is still possible. Tough as it may seem but these peaceful initiatives have been receiving positive feedback not only from ranks of the military but also from the academe, church and media. Capacity Building Efforts in the Military We have seen the possibility of educating the minds and hearts of the soldiers at the ground level, that soldiers can actually be peace builders, through the capability building program that we have designed and implemented together with one military brigade. One Master Sergeant, as an example, gradually understood the he has to manage his anger by himself, which affects his relationship with his peers, his co-workers and even his enemies, thereby realizing that he also has to change his biases in dealing with local community or clan issues.iii With the peace trainings -- some of which he was able to assist -- he has learned how to deal with anger, and how to use force and the rifle the proper way. Also, a Captain of a company of soldiers, when asked by his Commanding General about his action in the recent encounter with rebels in his area of operation, said his bravery did not diminish after he was given training on peace building. Instead, he was even more assertive, though humble, to face conflict, to accept mistakes and to perform better without prejudices.iv He has now the capacity, though still limited, to understand first what really happened in the encounter instead of pouring out his anger and thinking of nothing but revenge. These are just a few of the impacts of the peace trainings. More have been written in the documentations of the trainings with the reflections and sharing of the soldiers. These trainings are being undertaken on the ground, at the community level. Many of the soldiers’ stories are inspiring, some even overwhelming.
Though promising, the effort of capacity building on the ground, by itself, could not possibly change the entire military machinery and instantly make it an advocate of conflict transformation and peace building. We still need to promote structural changes, not only on the ground but also in the middle and top levels. We have to involve not only some soldiers but all actors in this these levels, promoting changes not only among themselves but also within the military systems and policies that curtail our human rights, hold back justice and restrict positive peace to emanate. Approaches of Conflict Transformation in the military Conflict Transformation requires a “long-term progression” link with a “long-term goal.” As suggested by John Paul Lederach in his Time Dimension model, “crisis responses must be seen as embedded in the need for strengthening the capacity to work more constructively with conflicts before they escalate into full-blown crises. It also suggests that initiatives in response to the immediate situation should be aimed at assisting all involved to move toward the medium-to-longer-term processes of social change that will address the structural and relationship challenges that generate systemic conflict and will move the situation toward a desired future.”v When Balay Mindanaw went into capacity building trainings for the military, this initiative stems from the desire to give peace a chance in Mindanao and the need for change in the paradigm of the people in Mindanao, especially the soldiers, in dealing with the Mindanao war and other sources of conflicts. And from there, came the challenge to look at the importance of scale -- wider, larger scale of intervention, especially given the recent clashes in Basilan and Sulu Islands in Western Mindanao. Armed offensives as a response to the ongoing conflict are embedded in the wider system on the military: command, leadership, policy and doctrine. Furthermore, to better understand such conflict in Mindanao, which has the possibility to escalate into a violent one (which is somehow being experienced now in Sulu and Basilan), the military (and its stakeholders) and all its features should also be considered – its solidity, cohesiveness, the community of people, the customs and traditions, shared interests and vision. People and Society: Social Cohesion Social Cohesion has two important features which Berkman and Kawachi noted: “(1) the absence of latent conflict whether in the form of income/wealth inequality, racial/ethnic tensions, disparities in political participation or other forms of polarization and (2) the presence of strong social bonds -- measured by levels of trust and norms of reciprocity, the abundance of associations that bridge social divisions and the presence of institutions of conflict management.”vi
Considering the long-term in conflict transformation, cultural resources, including the people and their ideas, are the utmost resources for peace. And this has been uttered always in formal and informal conversations by MGen. Ferrer that the military and its soldiers are “part of the problem and therefore should be part of the solution.” As for the military training on peace building, its impact extends from personal, relational, socio-political-economic levels, otherwise called the vertical level. It also extends horizontally towards a “social change and a desired future.” With real social cohesion dealing with conflict, it is impossible to avoid the promotion of change in the whole system of the military since this systems change is essential in engaging peace building and conflict transformation in the military. Promotes Positive System Change The changes, of course, that we want to foster should be, first, positive and, second, be in line with our values and even the visions that guide us. In dealing with the military, our desire for change must come from or start with the local stakeholders wanting to create a process or mechanism through which they can have an input into political decision-making about matters that affect their lives and their community.vii Our aim is not just the absence of war but also the elimination of unacceptable political, economic and cultural forms of discrimination or injustices and the presence of peace-enhancing relationships and structures. This is the positive change that we hope to happen. Dialogical Approach In understanding a particular problem or conflict, the dialogue workshops and recall sessions are most important vehicles and excellent option for people to come together, more focused to discuss specific issues and problems that easily direct them to take further actions to solve them.viii This “problem-solving” kind of dialogue workshops are typically for people like the military group of MGen. Ferrer and his men who advocates peace in their area but has somehow an influence or have access to the top decision-making people in the military. Though this may be an activity to work on towards another action, doing dialogue workshops is an approach towards conflict transformation. As Diana Francis puts it, “Dialogue workshops can address conflict dynamics directly, enabling their participants to transcend them. By challenging old assumptions and perceptions, dialogue workshops can diminish the cultural violence which used, in Galtung’s words, ‘to legitimize direct or structural violence’ and they support people who wish to exercise their responsibility and power, with others, to play in part in shaping their own social and political reality.”ix III - Dialogue with the Military Brigade Commanders In analyzing further our actions towards peace building and conflict transformation in the military, we can take a look at the framework of John Paul Lederach, presented in the book, called the integrated framework for Peace Building.
What I’ve been trying to say in the previous pages explains what the integrated framework wants to illustrate: the vertical range ( how do we respond to the conflict [responding to the root cause/s and understanding the conflict in a broader context]) - and horizontal range (how do we manage the conflict and build on this process for change towards the vision we desired.)x Recently, Balay Mindanaw was able to facilitate a kind of dialogue among the mid-level leaders in the military for possibilities of engaging their top leadership or policy makers and their policies that affect greatly their values, their roles as soldiers and peace builders, and their desire for positive change in their respective units and areas of responsibilities. And though not latent, their desire for positive change extends in looking at the systems and structures in the whole military organization. In the discussion among these identified and selected military commanders, mostly brigade and battalion commanders (including MGen. Ferrer), they unanimously saw the need to change the old paradigm of “neutralizing the enemy of the state.” It has been almost 40 years of war in Mindanao and that the government’s response has always been militarization, which has been destroying rather than securing lives, relationships and properties, including those of the soldiers and also the communities they protect. But these commanders deeply agree now that there is much more suitable, humane approach to solve both small wars and the long-standing conflict. They all see the viability of peaceful approaches, both vertical and horizontal levels. That day I saw their willingness and the openness of their minds and hearts to the idea that peace is possible in the military. Col. Soria, one of the brigade commanders, said that they should involve other sectors like the local government units (LGUs), including the Moro rebels with whom they are in conflict with, for them to be involved and be concerned about the problem in their areas, like logging, malnutrition, etc. and perhaps later they can formulate together some solutions at their own level. Another commander, Col. Javier, also said that they should strengthen their existing initiative of peace education of their men and women in the Army so that they will understand that there is another option or another tool for them to use as they perform their role as responsible soldiers. They also recognized that what they are doing is pursuing what they truly believe in and trying to enhance it, refining it for them to be able also to influence their superiors, who provide them the order or the authority and the policy, and there is no way that they can avoid it because these orders are as good as laws. But they dared say that sometimes they “cannot condone the acts of their commanding superiors, especially if there’s something wrong that is happening.” Once a man enters military service, his orientation now, and ever shall be, becomes to “neutralize the enemy,” short of saying kill or capture the enemy. They are bound to get more orders like these as they go along, and usually following orders without analyzing first the cause of conflict. In peace building, as what MGen. Ferrer always points out, soldiers become responsible and analytical fighters, trying to solve the conflict even without firing a gun or killing a person. In the process of the discussion, Kaloy Manlupig of Balay Mindanaw reminded them that the primary role of the soldier should not only be to protect and serve or secure the nation but also “to contribute to the vision of a lasting peace.” Agreeing on this, Col. Aquino says the real challenge for them now is to balance things: enhancing their role as a soldier and at the same time developing their roles as peace builders. In their analysis, they saw the need to first transform themselves, their peers, units and organizations. Next is to transform others, like the LGUs and other sectors of the community, and other stakeholders of peace in Mindanao. In trying to influence their top leadership, Lt.Col. Lorenzo, one of the battalion commanders, said that “we have to show results for the top leadership.” These results I believe are the output of our peace education efforts and the strengthening that they are planning on the ground, which he explained “will be our strength and can be utilized to work outside our unit with others.” Speaking of timeframe, these peace education efforts are still in the “short-range” period. The commanders are now in the process of looking at how to get from the old mindset of the military to the “desired change” and moving to a “decade thinking.” There were a lot of challenges but this one remains: how then will we introduce peace building in the whole military organization as a learning paradigm in conjunction with other paradigms? How can they influence their policies and change their parameters of success and accomplishment from the usual “body count system” (as to how many were killed or captured) to a more humane approach in looking at the development and progress of the community they are serving. For me, it is a complementary learning process of doing something in order to achieve a purpose or our desire for a peaceful society, especially if these paradigms are coherent to the vision of equity, development and peace. IV - Concluding Reflection When I started to join the team in organizing peace trainings, I came to realize the commitment to truth. I strive to be open and transparent in work. I hold to a commitment to nonviolent social change. This includes a respect for every human being -- making no discrimination on grounds of gender, religion, race, ethnic background, nationality and trusting every person as part of the solution. This commitment is an assurance that I make to myself, consistent with the vision and mission and for the benefit of the community I work for. And I can see from these military gentlemen’s transformed thoughts and ideas, fears and dreams, that they are committed to the work they started, and that they love this new kind of work, and are looking forward to find meaning with peace and development in their chosen service. “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” These are the words of Margaret Mead. And I believe that even though these gentlemen in the military are few, they are great in their wisdom of realizing the possibilities of peace as well as the possibilities of positive change in this realm of war and power. They have done their first steps. They understand deeply that changes in the military should be done to enhance their role not just as warriors but also as peace builders. And to be able to do this change, they completely realize the roles of every stakeholder in the community they serve and protect, and that they have to be involved in finding the solutions to problems they all face together. They are not moving away from their responsibility as soldiers. They are realizing that they have to do something with the systems and policies that control them and trying to hold their values of life, love, responsibility and hope. The peace trainings have taught us to learn things we never learned before, experience the things we never experienced before and hope the things we never hope before. The peace trainings have taught us to learn, to experience and to hope things that we never had before.
These were a good start but we have not been contented with our experience at this level. As we have discussed, conflict transformation explores the process of meeting a desired change which involve people at stake and strive to achieve a common vision. The dialogue among themselves, I believe, have helped them open up and continue to think, analyze and feel and dream the possibility of shaping their own reality through conflict transformation and peace building. I believe that they are slowly transcending and transforming, just as I am gradually realizing how we can truly make a difference in the military. Somehow influencing the minds of the people tends to have deeper impact, their learning on peace building etched on their minds forever. Now that Balay Mindanaw is in the midst of influencing the military, adherence to the root principle is essential, for both the military and us peace workers, that whatever it is that we advocate, its ultimate end must not contradict the root values and principles we adhere to, such as love, kindness, harmony, unity and sincerity. _______________________ References: iBalay Mindanaw Foundation, Inc. 2005. Panday Kalinaw: A Guide for Peace builders in Communities. Cagayan de Oro City iiResponding to Conflict. 2005. ACTS Core Topic Paper: Transforming Violent Conflict. iiiBalay Mindanaw Foundation, Inc. 2007. Peace Course with the Military still going despite war in Basilan and Sulu. www.balaymindanaw.org ivBalay Mindanaw Foundation, Inc. 2007. Documentation of the Assessment & Planning of the Capability Building for 103rd Brigade on Conflict Management and Peace Building. Marawi City. vResponding to Conflict. 2005. ACTS Core Topic Paper: Transforming Violent Conflict. viNat J. Colletta and Michelle L. Cullen. 2000. Violent Conflict and Transformation of Social Capital. Washington, DC. viiResponding to Conflict. 2005. ACTS Core Topic Paper: Conflict, Power and Change: Engaging with Actors, Systems, Structures and Policies viiiDiana Francis. 2002. People, Peace and Power ixDiana Francis. 2002. People, Peace and Power xResponding to Conflict. 2005. ACTS Core Topic Paper: Transforming Violent Conflict. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Helping Build Empowered and Sustainable Communities in Mindanao. Helping Build Peace.