Waitangi Protest Handout - Annotated

The Third Asia-Pacific Dialogue Forum is full of contradictions…
The Forum itself raises as many new questions for the peoples
of the region’s countries as those it proposes to resolve!

To our friends and colleagues who have shared their concern for humanity and my country, the Philippines.

Please find my response in Italics and in this font. While there was no opportunity to directly engage the protesters who have clearly made their presence felt in Waitangi, New Zealand, it may be good to respond to this paper that they have circulated to a sizeable number of international dialogue forum participants. These are my personal insights and I do not bind anyone else responsible for my comments.

Chito Generoso
Co-director
Interfaith Centre for a Culture of Nonviolence
iccn@pldtdsl.net


The dialogue at the Forum is described as helping “to promote good relations amongst different faith communities and cultures and build understanding, tolerance and respect for each other’s beliefs.” At one level, such dialogue could of course be seen as useful. But surely our commitment to faith and values requires us to check beyond superficial statements, to use the talents we have been given to hear, understand and analyse what is really happening in our region.

Addressing the Causes of Terrorism?
But when governments frame this dialogue at the Forum as way of “countering radicalisation and recruitment by terrorists, and thereby addressing some of the underlying causes of terrorism,” this puts the Forum right at the heart of the “War on Terrorism” as defined by President Bush and his close allies from UK and Australia. How seriously are the real causes of “terrorism” to be addressed at the Forum?

To take the situation of the Philippines as an example: Under the watch of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, 858 peace advocates have been killed in planned assassinations by her military and police following a plan called ‘Operation Freedom Watch,’ matched by a Public Relations campaign attacking such people as the ‘front’ for the communist insurgency. More annual killings than during the dictatorial regime of President Marcos.

A joint investigative (and independent) commission was formed to look into the killings. While the groups associated with some of the victims refused to recognize the authority of the commission, the findings have pointed to some of the deaths being attributed to rogue elements in the military establishment. However, not a few were election related violence by feuding local clans and political families. There were also those that were alleged executions carried out by rival non-state armed groups.

Apparently, the “culture of impunity” has proliferated and all conflicting sides must be called upon to respect International Humanitarian Law, end the worsening spiral of violence and counter violence, discard the idea of “an eye for an eye” and seriously pursue interest-based mediated peace talks and negotiations.

Many international and Filipino human rights investigations have tracked the military use of death squads. The UN Special Rapporteur for Extrajudicial Killings, Philip Alston, less than three months ago reported to the UN that the Philippines military is acting with a “culture of impunity;” that Government and officials have disturbingly ignored these killings (thus encouraging the military to act with impunity); and that the Government’s blaming these deaths on communists killing each other is without evidence, indeed unbelievable.

With Gloria Arroyo as President, whole communities are terrorised as their advocates – church, human rights, indigenous, peasant, union, political opposition and other leaders and workers – are targeted, harassed, abducted, killed, or named on death lists (the military’s “Order of Battle”). The courageous stands of these communities resisting state terrorism point us to the real causes of terrorism.

In my opinion, a power vacuum, created by the resignation of at least 10 key cabinet officials, was quickly filled up by people, some of whom may be more closely identified with active and retired military men and who have shown unquestioning loyalty to President Arroyo at the height of that political crisis. A determined opposition together with a broad alliance of civil society groups, perceived and stereo-typed as leaning to the left of the political spectrum, made efforts to impeach her and eventually accused of attempting to grab power last year. The effect may have been a drift in power and influence of this dominant group within the President’s inner circle but who may have unwittingly encouraged rogue criminal elements, more closely identified with a national security “ideology” of the 60’s, laced with red-baiting, red scare, demonization of perceived enemies of the state, and the Cold War. I believe that some of these rogue elements are the very people who swear by the belief in equating communism with terrorism. Therefore, in their skewed mind, it must justifiably be eliminated and defeated at all cost, judicially or extra-judicially.

Extremism and fundamentalism whether of religions or ideologies show their ugly effects in situations of armed conflict. People are polarized. Conflicting parties refuse to talk. In war and violence, we tend to be governed by hate. We become less rational. We become overconfident at our righteousness, and we fail to see our adversary as another human being, just like us, worthy of respect.

As a person who believes in transforming conflict nonviolently and who believes in the primacy of dialogue and mediation, may I urge all of us to continue unceasingly, encourage conflicting parties to return to the negotiation table as the key element to end violence and killings. We all must learn to respect each others points of view and constructively find ways to explore avenues of common interest, and for the common good. We must not insist on our correctness, or the wrongness of the other, in absolute terms. This, I believe is the meaning of a “moderate” agenda.

But to politely host President Arroyo here without challenge is not to “address the causes of terrorism,” but to give comfort to its perpetrators.

Some nonviolence advocates do not agree in shaming or embarrassing other people publicly. It is more difficult to present a contrasting opinion in an atmosphere that arouses antagonism and defensiveness. “Proclaiming” and “speaking” the truth more often requires more active listening and less about announcing and insisting on our own points of view. Fruitful dialogue is often accomplished in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect, and outside sensationalist eyes, some of whom are very vissible in the media.

Who sets the ‘Moderate’ Agenda?
When the Forum is described as strengthening the position of “moderate religious leaders,” we would have to ask who decides who is “moderate,” whose agenda is being followed, and – no matter the personal and collective integrity of those individual “moderates” and the communities they come from – how will the outcomes of the Forum be used by Governments who are not accountable to their communities?

Asking who sets the agenda of the Forum is not to criticise individual participants or the religious or community bases they come from. Rather, it is to ask that we look carefully at who sets the agenda, and to request you who are Forum Delegates to raise critical questions with Governments about the contradictions you see.

Over several years the agenda of the USA has included the language about “moderate” Muslim leaders in Mindanao in the south of the Philippines. Young Muslim leaders perceived by the State Department as “moderate” are taken to the US for exposure programmes, and brought back to Mindanao to be “mentored.” The intention has been to weaken Muslim nationalism – not extremism – and thereby suit US and Philippines Government agendas. Both Governments call the Philippines “the Second Front of the War on Terror,” because both Governments’ agenda, in opposition to grass-roots peoples’ hopes for justice, are met if they say they are tackling ‘terrorism.’

The Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (GRP-MILF) peace process is moving forward. The ceasefire is holding since 2003. I believe, it is because of the active participation of non-partisan peace advocates, civil society organizations and the international community. Together, they have remained steadfast in encouraging conflicting sides not to abandon the negotiation table. They helped ensure that neither side be allowed to violate the ceasefire with impunity. This active non-partisan effort still remains to be realized in the GRP - Communist Party of the Philippines, National Democratic Front, New Peoples Army (CPP/NDF/NPA) peace process. Perhaps this may also be true in peace process with other armed groups.

The talks between the (CPP/NDF/NPA) and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) has been suspended for years now. It was triggered by the "terrorist" classification imposed on them . An all-out-war appears to be raging silently but deadly. Perhaps the international community can help bring the conflicting sides back into the negotiation table, convince all sides to a ceasefire, and bring an end to extra-judicial killings as well as assassinations of dissenters regardless of political persuasion.

Eventually, perhaps just as people in many mature democracies have learned to allow people of different religious, political, ideological and other belief systems to freely express themselves without fear of prejudice, intolerance, persecution and marginalization, then perhaps we can realize that we can live harmoniously in the midst of diversity in whatever form. Foremost in my belief is that issues of social justice can now be more effectively addressed without the use of arms and violence. Further violence only drains the meagre resources of all conflicting parties that would have otherwise been spent for restoring the welfare of victims of war, violence and injustice.

I end my comments here because I may lack the competence for other issues within the region.

What other contradictions are there within the Forum?
The host government of New Zealand is not beyond critical analysis either. This country was established upon an international Treaty – called after this place we are in now ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi’ – between the original peoples and the English Crown, whereby the sovereign rights of the indigenous peoples of these lands and waters would be fully respected, their special taonga (gifts) honoured, and their rights as citizens fully enacted. That is not the experience of the Tangata Whenua, the indigenous Maori nations and peoples. Throughout the history of colonisation, by force or by law Crown authority over the country has been imposed on Maori, with terrible effects on the health, economic viability, cultural space. And they continue to resist.

The present New Zealand Government are making every move – domestically and internationally – to distance themselves from a number of the core values of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. New regulations and legislation remove the effect of Te Tiriti in a range of areas like health or education. Internationally, New Zealand has been one of the key opponents to the establishment of a robust Declaration of Indigenous Peoples’ Rights – and has done this without any real DIALOGUE with their Treaty partner, the Maori nations.

The question needs to be asked of Prime Minister Clark why the Maori nations are not formally represented at this Forum. Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the sacred Covenant signed between peoples, demands this question be asked. Maori may well ask why this Forum is being held at Waitangi.

What of the Australian Government?
The Australian nation was founded over 200 years ago in what indigenous peoples call ‘The Invasion.’ From the beginning the Aboriginal and Torres Strait peoples were disregarded, using religious concepts to describe the country as “terra nullius,” a land without people. That invisibilisation of the indigenous peoples, and the blatant personal and institutionalised racism against them continues. Their poor health, high mortality, high rate of deaths in prison, are the result.

The Australian Government has shrugged off UN and other investigations into the racism implanted into the heart of their state. What does this clearly say? That matters of life and death for indigenous Australians are not matters of national priority. And that must be a question for people of faith who put high value on life, and human rights.

Add to that Australia’s foreign policy driven by USA’s “War on Terrorism;” and the country’s treatment of asylum seekers and migrants… There are plenty of opportunities for the communities of faith to “speak truth” about the undermining of peace.

And Indonesia?
The complexity of ethnicities and beliefs of the Indonesian archipelago is a reality in this, the largest Muslim country in the world. But it cannot be used an excuse for the heavy-handed authority imposed with gross human rights violations upon various peoples within Indonesia. Over the decades, this authoritarianism has been imposed backed by either the silent acceptance or the active encouragement of the USA, of UK, of Australia and New Zealand Governments. Are such breaches of “peace and security of the region” to be considered within the Forum? Because the repression within Indonesia is not just historical, it is happening today.

To take the situation of West Papua, for example: Indonesia’s claim to sovereignty over West Papua – whose peoples are Melanesian and relate to the Pacific rather than Asia – was never agreed to by the indigenous peoples of the country. With the collusion by USA and the UN in 1963, a temporary arrangement for Indonesian involvement in the country was put in place, depending on a full act of self-determination “according to international practice.” This never happened; rather a small group of Papuans, threatened with violence, unanimously opted to “remain with Indonesia” in 1969.

Since the Indonesian takeover, an estimated 100,000 people have died as a direct result of the conflict and state-imposed repression. Leaders of the West Papuan independence movement, like Theys Eluay, have been murdered by Indonesian Special Forces. This month, the Indonesian military continues to practice terror against the civilian population, destroying villages, driving the people into the jungles where sickness and famine are taking their toll. There is brutal repression of all peaceful dissent and of free speech like flag-raising.

There is broad agreement among all sectors of the West Papuan community with the goal of making West Papua a Land of Peace, with faith communities taking a significant role. The role of the Government and their military has been heading in the other direction. How does this Forum seek Peace then?

What would really secure Regional Security?
The call is made to you participants to this Forum to:
1. speak truth to all the political leaders and their officials at this Forum
2. carry the search of truth into your work in your home community
3. think carefully: is the agenda of the Governments the whole truth?
4. take seriously the voices of the disadvantaged in all those countries, those who are the victims of repression – for they have a particular hold on the truth, as recognised by many faith traditions.

Peace to you all. And a blessing on your deliberations at the Forum, and on your work for healthy communities and societies at home.