OZAMIS CITY, Philippines—In the process of seeking solutions to age-old conflicts, what role should media play?
The question cropped up as the government kicked off its consultations with local leaders of western Mindanao on May 16.
During the dialogue between the government’s peace negotiators with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and local officials of Basilan, journalists who covered the event were asked to leave the venue.
The same “closed door” policy prevailed in the succeeding days when the government panel met with officials of Zamboanga City led by Mayor Celso Lobregat, the ulama of Basilan, and the leaders of Sulu. The journalists were, however, allowed to ask questions after the dialogues.
Since assuming the post of chief government negotiator with the MILF, dean Marvic Leonen of the University of the Philippines’ College of Law has emphasized that the Mindanao peace process must be transparent and inclusive in order to gain wide public support.
Speaking in Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte, in November 2010, in his first public address in Mindanao as negotiator, Leonen explained that popular support for the peace process was crucial because a politically negotiated settlement to the Bangsamoro question “must be delivered by the entire society.”
Why, then, “hide” from media scrutiny the dialogues with local leaders? Aren’t journalists supposed to be kept abreast with developments in order to tell the public the real state of the peace process?
The issue has found many journalists and peace advocates—whose respective professional communities are vital to the peace process—at opposing poles.
Mary Ann Arnado, secretary-general of nongovernment Mindanao Peoples Caucus, defended the government panel’s closed-door meetings, saying the actions of the negotiators must be understood in the larger context of their involvement in the thick of “collecting inputs from political leaders and local government officials.”
“At this point when they are still hearing out the sentiments and views of the local leaders, it might not be productive at all to open the exchanges to the scrutiny of the media as that might prevent a frank discussion of vital issues,” she stresses.
Arnado says some of the local officials to be consulted with “are known spoilers” of the peace process.
“If you let the media report every grandstanding statement of the politicians, it can spoil the whole consultation efforts,” she adds.
But she is confident that the panel members “will eventually open their consultations as soon as they have come up with their own counterproposal” to the MILF’s draft peace agreement.
Shaping a formula
The government panel is currently shaping up its version of a peace formula with the Moro rebels, who had earlier presented their draft. It will present its counterproposal when the two sides meet in Kuala Lumpur for formal exploratory talks on June 27-28.
Remy Bonostro, a veteran broadcaster based in General Santos City, says he understands the need for the “privacy of these (consultation) meetings” since the government negotiators are “still establishing talking points” for a proposed peace pact.
“It would be premature for public disclosure,” Bonostro says.
Roldan Gonzales, a longtime grassroots community development worker, says public scrutiny should be “dictated by the nature of the consultation.”
“If it is geared toward shaping up a position on a sensitive question, it is better kept under wraps. But the firmed-up position must eventually be made known to the public, including an explanation on why it was shaped that way,” Gonzales says.
Balance
In a brief statement, Leonen emphasizes the need for “a balance between transparency and negotiations.”
“At certain times, the public is excluded to test ideas. These discussions might be taken out of context,” he says. “We hope media will understand (the) privacy of deliberation of leaders as we also respect the need of the public to know.”
He, nevertheless, gives assurance that “consultations will be conducted with the people.”
A journalist in Zamboanga had earlier said that the government negotiators were wary of “telegraphing to the MILF” its emerging position on substantive issues of the peace negotiations if they would open the exchanges during the dialogues to media scrutiny.
Accompany the process
Arnado, a recipient of the World Vision International’s 2009 Peacemaking Award, urges the media to step up reportage of the peace process, “especially when it is at a crucial stage.”
Both the government and MILF panels have acknowledged that with the way things are turning out on the negotiating table, they may be able to come up with a political settlement in a year.
“I ask the Philippine media to support a track of problem-solving rather than igniting old prejudices that only prolong the conflict,” Arnado says.
She asks media to shake off their “propensity for the blood-and-gore angle when covering conflicts.”
“This had never been helpful in fostering peace in Mindanao and even in other regions of conflict in the country,” she says.
MOA-AD lessons
The media have been blamed for keeping the general public in the dark about the historical underpinnings of the Bangsamoro question that has bred four decades of armed rebellion waged by a succession of two liberation movements.
Apart from pointing to the lack of a massive public information campaign, peace activists also noted the low level of understanding about Mindanao history that has led to hardships in containing the explosiveness of the Moro homeland issue in 2008.
The yearlong war beginning in August 2008 was blamed for the botched memorandum of agreement on ancestral domain (MOA-AD), which drew widespread clamor in non-Moro areas, leading government to call off signing the document.
Speaking before journalists on May 7 in Manila, Miriam Coronel-Ferrer, a member of the government peace panel, urged the media to increase the number of stories that explain the core concepts that drive the substantive aspects of the negotiations with Moro rebels.
As an example, Ferrer pointed at the need to explain the concepts of identity and citizenship. At the heart of the MILF’s clamor for self-governance is the assertion of an identity distinct from the dominant Filipino ideology.