The conversation on peace must continue

I had not seen Mike Mastura for a long time. We often met at seminars and conferences on peace in Mindanao and my image of him was that of a Muslim intellectual firebrand. The Masturas were great exemplars of a Muslim-Christian partnership. His wife, Lourdes, is a dyed in wool former colegiala. I remember she was part of a group of volunteers doing museum work.

Imagine my surprise when I was told he was in the MILF panel in Kuala Lumpur that came up with the controversial MOA-AD. He claims that what happened there and the document that was initialed have been so badly misreported in Manilacentric media that even he does not recognize what is being reported. The interpretations have misled both the public and decision makers and said he would be grateful for help to be able to talk to editors to give his side.

Even if the Philippine government has now cancelled negotiations with the MILF, there is no reason why the conversation should not continue. It has been going on for years way before Kuala Lumpur. But first let us clear the decks and remove what he refers to as “Opinion-eds claiming the USIP as its source when it reports on some ploys that smacks of “conspiracy”. Well, Mike says the theory is all wrong. Worse, it is insulting.

The inference is that “the intellects of the Bangsamoros that a Salamat Hashim or Michael Mastura or Musib Buat or Abdul Dataya or Lanang Ali or Mohagher Iqbal or Maulana Alonto or Ebrahim Murad or Ghazali Jafaar, et al. are incapable of giving impetus to a patriotic, powerful movement as appropriate units for self-governance.”

He adds that “at an appropriate time, we can reveal more background on Salamat’s twin letters to Washington as part of our narrative for advocacy of the MILF-GRP negotiation process.” It is not a correspondence to the ‘Great White Father’ but an ideological Bangsamoro discourse on a higher plane.

He laments the unfairness of media reporting that denies them equal time and space to those who would misrepresent the Bangsamoro position. He cites the case of Soliman Santos Jr., a lawyer who is a serious legal commentator of the GRP-MILF negotiation process who was given only a small space in a Letter to the Editor of the other paper.

If we are to carry out a proper national conversation their side must be heard as well for shaping fair public opinion. “There is an “immense power of the press” to influence the Supreme Court to act and decide, which he argues, “in a certain way, necessarily carries with this power the responsibility to balance (also a responsibility of the Court),” he wrote.

Worse the editorials encourage an anti-Moro bias. “Most editorials, too, are replete with anti-Moro bias to reflect a prejudice spawned by the indelible imprints of the ‘Moro wars’.”

*      *      *

I do no think that Kuala Lumpur was a wash-out. After all, it gave the Bangsamoro intellectuals a platform to voice their historical grievances of which so many Filipinos are ignorant. The MOA-AD controversy has opened new approaches enriched by the focus on what Bangsamoro was all about historically. From hereon, the thrust should be how to accommodate this grievances with their political aspirations within the Filipino nation. Even as Bangsamoro seeks historical redress, it must also face very real issues, facts and events that have intervened since then to make a return to the past not only impossible but suicidal. The conversation on peace should devote its attention to how to reconcile and satisfy both historical and exigent demands to achieve peace and secure the wellbeing of the people of Mindanao whether they are Muslims or Christians.

How to achieve unity in diversity should be the objective around which peace in the Mindanao communities should be built. The answer to this as it has been in other places with similar problems is a federalist structure. And yes, if a constitutional change is the way to a federal Philippines to preserve peace and save lives then it must be done as soon as it is practicable. Here we come at a crucial point that has to be faced. When should it be done? The anti-GMA constituency gets plenty of coverage to say no. Charter change is anathema to the country’s establishment and it gets the support bent on keeping the status quo.

The only difference perhaps is that a campaign of hate against President GMA has preceded the campaign against Charter change. The truth, I am afraid, is that if it is not done before 2010 it will never be done. And I will put my wager on that. There will be no Charter change after 2010.

If federalism is the solution to achieve peace in Mindanao and that would require Charter change, it should be the thrust of every patriotic political agenda in town and not President GMA as the campaign of hate has conditioned the Filipino mind to believe. That is a separate issue that can be equally addressed but it should not come in the way of a federalist solution if it will save lives and give thousands of Filipinos whether Muslims or Christians in Mindanao a chance of a better life.

One suggestion is to limit it to a Moro state as the sole federal territory, while the status quo remains in all other territories and provinces.

I end this column with Mastura’s laments on how media has mangled the MOA-AD so the public would reject it. As I had previously written he avers it was an agreement on key points for negotiation towards a final agreement. To be fair, even a final agreement would not be final until it is put to a plebiscite.

I am surprised at the reluctance to use the word federalism even if that is what is meant by a solution that would respect the Muslim way of life at the same time that it remains within the ambit of Filipino sovereignty.

For a meaningful national conversation we need the help of media that would emphasize these distinctions instead of being used to push vested interests especially when it is for ambitious senators seeking the presidency in 2010. It would a worthwhile project if we could put together a media group to help this conversation going and serve as an instrument of peace rather than violence.