| |
 A pleasant good afternoon to each one of you, my friends and colleagues in the humanitarian community. I am very grateful to my Mercy Malaysia family and my colleagues in the Asian Disaster Reduction and Response Network for making it possible to be back here again since August 2008. Tomorrow, the 14th of November, is the first year anniversary of my new-found freedom from my 61-day captivity with the Abu Sayyaf Group in Basilan, Southern Philippines.
Let me begin on a pessimistic note: THERE IS NO SURE PATH TO PEACE. Many of us who have been exposed to situations of conflict one way or another could firmly say that nothing is risk-free. Peace, to some of us, may just be a panacea, something remotely possible as the complexities that confront us seem to magnify each day. Be that as it may, hope is the flame in the hearts of every worker for peace. And I believe that every humanitarian worker in a conflict zone is truly and must essentially be a worker for peace, and a manager of conflicts.
Elusive as Peace truly is, I believe that what is critical is the process that one undertakes towards Peace - the decision to take action and pursue Peace at all costs despite the overwhelming impossibilities.
Let me state the summary points I would like to highlight:
1. Risks will always be present. This is something the authentic humanitarian worker will need to recognize and accept.
2. It does not mean though that one just throws all caution to the wind. As I often say, we can be courageous but not careless. It means that one must always be vigilant. One must always be discerning regarding the environment in which one is operating. And one must always be making judgments as to whether the risks in which one places oneself at any point in time is justified by the potential benefits to the community which would be lost should such a risk not be taken.
3. Working through local partners has many benefits, only one of which is to reduce the risk to oneself. More important is placing greater responsibility to the local partners, in the process enabling them to grow in their commitments to their compatriots and to themselves.
4. But it is also important to be sensitive to the perceptions of local communities and local partners vis-a-vis the humanitarian worker concerns about the risks to him/herself. Could it be perceived as a lack of commitment to them?
In the end, as in life in general, there are no clear simple answers. One has to work one's way through. There is no common template. Each situation is unique. Each has its own challenges. Each has its own opportunities and rewards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
What explains this difficult environment where a humanitarian cum peace worker finds oneself nowadays?
The trend in war situations locally and globally has made humanitarian work and peace building extremely difficult and puts humanitarians at greater risk. Many times, we find ourselves walking on a path laden with broken glass, as it were, becoming suspect to both parties to a conflict. These are easily picked up and transmitted through public perceptions, rightly or wrongly, of our humanitarian engagements. But these perceptions do matter a lot to our survival.
Security management that consistently upholds neutrality is a very difficult balancing act for humanitarians like us. We are no longer exempt from security threats from armed groups that evidently pursue other objectives. At the same time, we are often also suspected by State security agencies as giving aid and comfort to the “enemy”. At best, we are blamed for our intransigence when we fall victim to acts of violence from bandits and so-called terrorists.
In the nature of today’s wars and armed conflicts, “collateral damage” deem civilians as suspected accomplices of the enemy. One of the factors that brings this about is the fact that civilian communities have now become the battle zones. You weaken the community, you weaken the enemy. In a civilian battlefield no one is considered neutral. In this modern day war of extreme ideologies and fundamentalism, everyone in the expanded war zone has become fair game. Humanitarians and development workers have as well become pawns in this open warfare. It did not matter at all to my captors that I was a humanitarian worker living with marginalized Muslim communities for some years. To them, I was “haram”, encroaching in their territory and, as such, I deserve to face the consequences.
The Nature of Wars and Armed Conflict
Wars leave deep indelible scars in the individual and collective psyche of the victims most often entire communities. It is not just the basic physical needs that are lost and found wanting by victims displaced by the conflict. More telling are the degradation of human dignity and the sense of helplessness that weighs down on people. Human failure and violence threaten people’s self-respect. When someone plays god over you, taking your destiny in his hands, your personal sense of autonomy breaks down.
These are the standard psychological and social effects of repression that every humanitarian and development worker must be aware in working in conflict areas. Understanding these critical factors would guide us in determining the proper courses of action and the degree of sensitivity necessary to work towards conflict management, and even sustainability of our program interventions. It is critical to look into not just the personal but the collective healing processes that should be inherent in our community engagement. More fundamental is the consciousness that our intervention, no matter how small it may be, is something that would harness cohesion rather than division.
Drastic Changes in the Work Environment
The evident threat and reality of kidnappings by bandits or by those who claim to be Islamic fundamentalists is constantly there. In my own case, having been working in conflict zones in the Sulu Archipelago for some years, I had a sense it was just a matter of time. For a non-Muslim carrying out humanitarian work in the conflict-ridden areas in Muslim Mindanao, the risks are tremendous especially as the more moderate traditional leaders in these communities - with whom we have nurtured a working or even personal relationships - find their own sphere of influence diminishing as they themselves are entangled in a worsening state of marginalization. Their own confidence to broker agreements and resolutions is shaken when secular political structures of governance have overruled their traditional leadership. As such, they are constrained to make a strong position against irrational violence – for reasons ranging from fear to resistance in getting involved into long range clan conflicts that they will be unable to sustain.
This is one of the answers I console myself with on the question, why, despite many years of community program engagement, many years of trust building, any community-initiated effort to get my friend and I out from the hands of our captors became unsuccessful. It is no longer a safe assumption that communities can protect us in our humanitarian engagements. In a highly volatile situation, community partnership building is no longer a guarantee.
Communities in Perennial Situations of Conflict
Unfortunately, in many areas – as in Mindanao-Sulu – have never known peace. In the province of Sulu, for example, it can be said that not a single generation of Suluanos in the past 450 years has ever experienced a life without war, since the arrival of the Spanish colonizers in 1565 to the present time. Working with some communities in Sulu for more than five years, I discovered that some families had had to evacuate from their homes as many as ten times in the past twenty-five years. One woman gave birth to all her children during different periods of evacuation. The lives they and their children had known had essentially been lives as displaced persons, living in evacuation centers, or a relative’s house dependent on the generosity for basic need for their survival.
Under such circumstances, is it surprising that people develop a culture of dependency, that people lose their self-pride and that their children grow up knowing nothing but a culture of violence and war? If people can barely even manage hurdle their day to day fundamental needs, how can we even raise awareness at the level of human rights?
Framework for Intervention
There is therefore a need to come up with a framework for humanitarian intervention and peace building in situations of armed conflict, one that recognizes the unique experiences that victims undergo in such situations and that call for approaches geared at contributing to the crafting of a long-term resolution of the conflict situation.
Clearly the experience in the Southern Philippines has shown that many if not most of the traditional development interventions introduced by the Government and by International Donor Institutions and some NGOs have either been wanting or have failed. Why, after hundreds of millions of Dollars in assistance poured into the area, after decades of programs upon programs being introduced, do people still live in poverty and conflict, do people still live in fear? And why the military approach, over the past decades, has failed repeatedly?
Clearly a different paradigm, a different framework of approaching and way of looking at things is needed. It is the first, basic step.
First Step – Understanding the Situation
The first building block of the framework consists in understanding the context within which one will operate. One needs to understand the history of the area, who the various peoples are that live and work in this area, how they came to be, what the forces are that shaped developments in the area, what people’s aspirations are as a result of these forces, what the contending views are which are prevailing in the area today.
Furthermore, one needs to see what are the different conflicts at play, that it is not just, for example, the legitimate police and armed forces of the State trying to impose law and order on so-called “terrorists” but that because of the history of the area the people may in fact view the State as being another colonial force, imposing a foreign way of life and system of laws upon a people who have in fact had their culture and laws in place even before the State came into being.
That surface conflict may be underlain by a conflict for control over land and resources, which may be manipulated by certain parties, often political leaders, who want to take advantage of their collaboration with the State and the prevailing system of laws to extract certain personal advantages over their constituents.
The conflict could perhaps be better understood by viewing the clash of ideologies between the State and the resisting forces. At the same time, though, one needs to be wary of situations where ideological imperatives are utilized for narrower objectives by some of the contending parties.
In brief, as humanitarians and development workers, we should not go into an area with unverified assumptions. There is no substitute for doing one’s homework and approaching one’s tasks with sensitivity, humility and sound judgment.
Second Step – The People
If there is one principle that humanitarian workers and other well meaning peace practitioners need to espouse it is this: that in the final analysis, the approaches and solutions to helping people pull themselves out of the abyss of poverty and conflict that they may find themselves in lies in their hands. One need not go far to look for solutions. They basically lie in the knowledge and the experience that people themselves have.
Oftentimes Donor Institutions, NGOs and Governments bring their preconceived notions, formulas and agenda or one-size-fits-all programs to an area and express surprise several months or years down the road as to why the programs have been abandoned, why water systems have fallen into disrepair or why health centers or classrooms are inhabited by livestock. And often, the easy answer is that the people have not appreciated the value of what had been “given” to them.
The real answer probably lies in the process by which the program had been introduced. For a program to be sustained and have a long-term impact on a community it must be based on a partnership, a partnership between the community and the development agency and its workers. And true partnerships are anchored on trust. It necessitates a face to face, person to person encounter, both in good and difficult times over a significant period of time. It is not an easy process; it is one that requires a leap of faith. For those that choose to and are able to manage to work in these complex situations, (motivated by ideals but not naiveté), these individuals are challenged to undergo a real change of attitude of humility and trust to allow the process of their own transformation towards better understanding. There is so much to learn from communities in conflict who have been through a lot of difficulties.
A Mutual Transformation Process
If at all, our own humble role is to try and work with the communities, most of whom are not sufficiently able to articulate their priorities, in eliciting untapped capacities, engaging in a very delicate process of value transformation in every stage of the process. Indeed, the transformation process is a personal and collective journey that is mutually beneficial. It is essentially a two-way handholding process that opens the mind, touches the heart and moves the person to act not merely for oneself but for the good of others. At the end of the process the humanitarian and development worker will realize that he or she has learned more, gained more from the community than he or she may have actually contributed.
Third Building Block – The Programs
If one accepts this view that the power of transformation lies in the hands of the people, then one begins to view programs and projects differently. In attempting to cater to the pressing basic needs of people in conflict areas one must take note that the provision of the goods and services to meet these needs should also be seen as being vehicles to achieve a longer-term objective: the unveiling of the power that lies within the community. Moreover, any humanitarian or development engagement in a conflict zone, particularly in the midst of conflict, cannot be seen outside of the quest for peace. Projects should not be seen as mere physical facilities or services but in addition should be seen as vehicles for people to discover their potentials and their strengths. They should be seen as opening up opportunities for a dejected people to bring back their self-respect and collective pride for the good work they are carrying out for their own community, their people. The same principle applies in carrying out humanitarian work. Our interventions must be strategized in a way that would elicit and harness the spirit of compassion, volunteerism and pride. This is an essential part of the natural healing process – to provide opportunities for constructive engagement. We all need to raise awareness that programs and projects can have an impact beyond the surface manifestations of their physical attributes, that they, in fact, go deeper into the psyche of the community. And better yet, we are confident to come up with quality projects that are cost effective and replicable. Money is not necessarily always the primary motivator. If community engagement is not managed properly, funds can become a source of further division among the peoples. And worse, people are deprived of the first chance to determine what they can actually give to the engagement which cannot be quantified in monetary terms.
The Technical and the Social
Many times, the social aspect of any short or long term development intervention far outweighs the technical problems. The confidence and dignity of people caught in conflict have been shattered over many years of war and violence. The level of distrust remains to be high. Even motivations of humanitarian workers can be viewed with cynicism. Hence, if not approached properly, a culture of dependency, even of mendicancy, is reinforced in communities exposed to accept handouts from government and other NGOs in the past. It demeans the inherent capacity of peoples to be resilient. It is critical to carefully counter such culture of dependency by drawing out the peoples’ faith in themselves and helping nourish this delicately to facilitate sustainability of the programs. This is by its nature a long-term process. Wherefrom do we pick up the pieces when the spirit that would give life to these programs and projects has long been exterminated? Poverty is not just about the deprivation of food, decent clothing, shelter and education but also a poverty of the spirit borne out of the struggle with self-centeredness and individualism, as a primary mode of survival.
The Need for Flexibility and Creativity
As conflict areas are by nature, volatile and uncontrollable, one cannot be rigid about targets and indicators. Flexibility and creativity are important life skills. The security of the life of the humanitarian or development worker and one’s team must not be compromised as the risks become more evident as each day passes by. It is akin to tiptoeing on broken glass. A multi-disciplinary approach is critical and the strong ability to balance this with natural intuition is essential. The demand for flexibility means the ability to step back and make the necessary halts and turns in different directions at the right time. The traditional mode of sequential programming, targeting specific outputs for a specific period is inapplicable in such complex situations given the fact that the situation is beyond your control. Every step and subsequent step takes off from deep reflection, and some quick consensus building. Each model of engagement is going to be different as it is context-specific but the common denominator begins with local knowledge and choice. We must offer a range of policy options to communities to enable them to assess the implications of the various choices open to them. In the same vein, donors and NGOs must recognize these operational constraints in such complex environment within which their local program partners, and/or staff, operate.
In peace building, time is of the essence so that creative interventions must work out a balance to prevent new conflicts that feed on current ones. The distinct opportunity for peace building comes at its ripest moment. More often than not, as frequently witnessed, responses have been too little, too late. Timely and well thought out action that could keep a community from sliding back into renewed and much worse conflict is oftentimes missed. Therefore, one would be able to seize the opportunity as it presents itself only if one were on the ground exercising utmost vigilance. Winning the peace means constant vigilance, fragile as it is. A win-win solution triumphant at a given moment is not likely to sustain without vigilance. The gains of peace, no matter how small it may seem, need to be protected jealously with the same rigor and vigor (if not much more) as military forces would carry out their operations to win against the enemy.
The Dilemma of Governance
The structure of society is such that elected leaders are placed to represent the interests of their constituents and address their needs. Unfortunately, nowadays, in many areas in the Southern Philippines – and admittedly elsewhere as well – feudal attitudes towards governance still prevail, public office is seen not so much as a position of trust and service but as an opportunity to advance one’s personal interests and benefits. All the more people need to depend on their own resources and capabilities. Yet, in advocating for human security, we need to creatively confront the institutions that undermine its pursuit particularly governance institutions.
Military Humanitarianism in Communities in Conflict
A phenomenon of the 20th century is one where the military has found itself to be in the forefront of so-called “humanitarian” work in order, in the old Vietnam War phrase, “to win the hearts and minds of the people”. The military calls its non-combat activities as civilian operations. In the context of conflict, however, humanitarianism by a party to conflict is viewed with suspicion as it is seen to be more of a cover for intelligence data gathering. The best that can be said is that the military and police undertake stop-gap interventions in the absence of the regular agencies of government performing their mandated duties. To hope for more than this would be to create very high, if not unrealistic expectations, and in fact potentially creates more risks for the humanitarian populace at large.
The Freedom from Humiliation; Healing and Reconciliation
Freedom from humiliation is the heart and soul that demarcates the life and death of a people. The local people and their officials must have the free rein to take pride, and own their responsibilities in all these undertakings. It kicks off from what the community is able to counterpart in essentially intangible, unquantifiable terms to bring about constructive change for the public good.
Healing is an inevitable step along the road to reconciliation. No development program can take off without some confidence that the ghosts of the past can be revisited without some agony. The long, arduous path to peace is essentially a healing path – opening up opportunities for people to regain trust and pride in themselves and in their fellow human beings. Any program engagement should inherently attempt to resurrect this human spirit, extending the occasion to give, and feel the goodness and joy emanating from such engagement. It provides a healing path that is able to reach out to each other in a respectful and affirmative manner.
Humanitarianism and Hope
Despite the serious constraints we are now facing as committed humanitarians and peace workers, I still believe that the vital, unprecedented paths to peace and development are waiting to be explored. What we have experienced or have seen in the Southern Philippines is that communities still have a strong desire for peace more than any other. It is from this desire that solutions for peace can emanate. Until and unless the people who are living in the crossfire, the people who continue to suffer the unquantifiable and unimaginable horror brought about by war and violence; the people who struggle thru an endless cycle of rebuilding, are themselves given the opportunity to direct their own paths to peace, the end of conflict will never be in sight.
Our vision for peace and humanitarianism must be infused with sustained commitment and endless optimism even as this is crucially balanced with realism. It is not an easy task, akin to walking on a tightrope or groping in the dark, knowing that one is putting oneself at risk but proceeding nevertheless. At times, this commitment to peace is pursued even at the supreme sacrifice of one’s life.
There is no sure path to Peace. The peace paths are numerous and the challenges are enormous. Sometimes you may need to take a step forward and step back ten times, or move sideways or even to just stand still. It is a gift of art and the skill of science. As the art and science of conflict management becomes more challenging as wars become more complex and fluid, so must we, humanitarians, continue to harness our skills to be more creative, and nurture our instincts toward sensitivity and flexibility. One way of building on these is by keeping close to the ground, in the frontline, pulsating with the people, feeling their joys and pain as our own joy and pain.
May Peace and Hope be with each of us.
|
