Philippines (2012 onwards, inc OEF)

[Dayuhan]

Announced today, with much fanfasre but no hint of what's been agreed, a new agreement between the MILF and the Philippine Government:

http://www.rappler.com/nation/13750-...ro-soon-on-map

Govt, MILF reach deal

A new autonomous political entity (NAPE) called "Bangsamoro" will soon be part of the Philippine political map, as the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) conclude negotiations on a Framework Agreement in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on Sunday, October 7.

MindaNews first broke news that the two sides were able to finish working on the Framework Agreement that would pave the way for the NAPE.

Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Teresita Deles confirmed that the two sides have reached an agreement.

Aquino's comments, largely in Tagalog, here:

http://www.rappler.com/thought-leade...ce-in-mindanao

It will be interesting to see what the agreement contains, and, more important, how the settler population of Mindanao, which has long seen any kind of agreement with the MILF as a sellout of its interests, will react.

It's not likely that the agreement will have a major impact on the OEF/P area of operations, looks likely that it's focused on the core MILF areas in Central Mindanao. Hard to say until the text is published.

[Dayuhan]

Draft agreement is here:

http://pcdspo.gov.ph/downloads/2012/...t-10062012.pdf

Will try to have a closer read and post some comments tomorrow, but initial reactions...

It's not all all clear how this is meant to differ from the ARMM, beyond some territorial revisions.

The reaction of the Mindanao settler population will be critical, and remains to be determined. This population is politically potent, has widespread support among the non-Mindanao populace, has derailed a previous agreement, and generally sees accommodation with the MILF as antithetical to its interests.

It's not clear that the Tausug, Yakan, and Sama populations of Basilan, Jolo and associated islands (where the ASG has been rooted and the core operational area of OEF/P) will accept an agreement negotiated by the predominantly Maguindanao/Maranao leadership of the MILF.

They're talking about a signing on the 15th, it will be interesting to see what reactions emerge.

[Bob's World]

http://www.rappler.com/nation/13750-...ro-soon-on-map

President Aquino is saying all the right things in this press release. Based on the strategic perspective of insurgency that I regularly promote on this venue, this current effort by the government of the Philippines is spot on. I agree with how they are defining the problem as well as how they are describing the intended effects of this new legislation.

Revolutionary and Resistance insurgencies are much more illegal politics than war, and are endeavors taken on by populaces who have come to believe that their current system is intolerable and that they have no legal recourse to address the same. Recognizing the reasonable perceptions of such populaces and dedicating the entire system of governance to evolve to address those most critical perceptions is key.

"The ARMM is a failed experiment. Many of the people continue to feel alienated by the system, and those who feel that there is no way out will continue to articulate their grievances through the barrel of a gun. We cannot change this without structural reform," he said.

"This framework agreement is about rising above our prejudices. It is about casting aside the distrust and myopia that has plagued the efforts of the past; it is about learning hard lessons and building on the gains we have achieved," the President said.

These critical perceptions form a figurative "circle of trust" that individuals and populace groups either feel that they are within or without; that they are empowered to effect legally or only illegally. Managing the circle of trust is a critical function of governance everywhere, be it formal or informal in nature. Trust is hard to build and easy to destroy, so this is not easy task and will take time, but the journey must begin with the first step.

It is worth remembering that we continue our own journey on this path in the US as we continue to work to overcome the prejudices that affect good governance within our own borders. The saving grace for the US is that the people by and large still believe they have some modicum of ability to legally address, or at least express, their concerns with both governance and government. We should be more diligent in protecting and improving the important aspects of what makes our own society reasonably stable, but I really don't think most appreciate the nuance of what is truly important. That tends to get lost in the noise of what is crurrently urgent.

The devil is in the details, and it is easier to say one is going to rise above their prejudices than it is to actually do so. In my opinion this effort provides a strategic framework for getting to a more stable situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan as well. I wish the people of the Philippines well on this latest course change to address this ancient problem. They may be 100 years from achieving what we in the US see as reasonable stability, but our perceptions matter little, and I for one believe they are on the right track.

[Dayuhan]

I am less sanguine, as one might expect. If it was possible to pigeonhole the conflict as "oppressed Muslim populace vs centralized imperial government", then an autonomous government might help, but the conflict is a lot more complicated than that.

After reading it a few times, I will say this much: despite the lack of specifics, much of which will have to be resolved in the "basic law" for the region that is still to be formulated, this is probably about as much as the Philippine Government could have brought out of peace talks with the MILF. That said, it will not solve the problem. It may create a window of opportunity during which the real problems could be addressed, but whether or not that will happen remains to be seen. Precedents are not encouraging.

Effectively what the agreement does is carve out a largely (not entirely) Muslim-majority area and designate it "Bangsamoro", literally "Moro Nation" but applicable to either a territory or a populace. The territory is slightly larger than the old ARMM (Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao) and the degree of autonomy is somewhat greater. Both the territory and the degree of autonomy are substantially less than what would have been provided in the monumentally flawed MOA/AD (Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain) that was shot down by the Supreme Court several years ago.

What the agreement does not address is the scourge of big man politics, the single greatest obstacle to peace and prosperity in Mindanao. In some ways the autonomous status of the region may even exacerbate that scourge, as any effort by central government to bring local big men within the rule of law will be presented by those threatened as constraints on local governance.

The immediate conflict set up by the agreement is between the former rebels who aspire to positions in the new autonomous government and the Muslim big men who have been cooperating with government and occupying political positions in the old ARMM and the other areas included in the autonomous region. The rebel leaders have some credibility for having fought and for having forced an agreement, but the existing political elite have a lot of money (gained through exorbitant corruption) and well established patronage networks. Even in their base areas in Central Mindanao it's not in any way clear that MILF leaders can displace the seasoned political operators of the dominant clans, even with the Ampatuans out of play to a large extent.

The most likely outcome, in my cynical view, is a mad scramble for advantageous places at the feeding trough offered by the new governmental entity. That will be accompanied by a decrease in organized "rebel vs government" violence, but an uptick in "candidate vs candidate" violence. Once the places are grabbed, those who get in will move to build patronage and cement their positions, those on the outside will accuse them of corruption and other assorted evils. The losers will end up on the periphery, disgruntled, angry, and prime candidates for recruitment by more radical groups.

Previous efforts at autonomy have foundered not because they were not autonomous enough, but because they were ruled through an antiquated and destructive "big man" system that effectively created feudal lords with absolute power in their turf. The central government typically cut deals with the feudal powers, effectively trading off immunity from law for guaranteed votes and assurances that the feudal lords would suppress rebellion in their territory (latter promise often not pursued with any great vigor). Those deals had a pretty pernicious effect and are not conducive to long term peace or development.

The problem is how to grant the politically necessary autonomy while still trying to control the rapacious and feudal local elites that are such a burden on the region. This agreement is not going to solve that problem, but it's not certain that any agreement would. What could have a really positive impact would be a decisive effort by central government to arrest and prosecute some of the worst offenders in the fields of corruption, collusion with criminal elements, human rights violations, etc, and deliver the message that it's serious about bringing its own people within the rule of law... but that is not going to happen.

This agreement will probably have little impact in the OEF/P area of operations, for the most part outside core MILF territory. It would IMO be a good excuse for the US to reduce the commitment and announce a plan for eventually phasing it out. There needs to be an end to every operation and I think this one is past the point of diminishing marginal returns... not that cooperation shouldn't continue, but I think scaling down the deployment in the conflict area in the south makes good sense at this time.

[Dayuhan]

I'm not sure that it's as bad as this, but some of the points are valid:

http://opinion.inquirer.net/39388/aq...-on-the-nation

Aquino-MILF pact a curse on the nation

Rather than a legacy of peace, President Aquino’s pact with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front contained in the “Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro” will be his curse on the nation. The consequences of the pact, renewed violence in Mindanao and even terrorist attacks in urban centers, will outlive his term, and will be one of the biggest headaches of the next president.

We have to disabuse ourselves of the naive, sappy “give-peace-a-chance” mentality that peace accords always lead to the silencing of guns...

[Bill Moore]

Dayuhan,

I don't know if it is as bad as the author makes out, but I do agree if the peace deal goes bad it will likely lead to another surge in fighting/killing. The younger members of the MILF are not as interested in peace as the senior leaders of MILF whose time is probably short. A lot of potential spoilers on both sides of the fence.

We have to disabuse ourselves of the naive, sappy “give-peace-a-chance” mentality that peace accords always lead to the silencing of guns. From Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 Munich Agreement with Adolf Hitler, to the 1973 Paris Peace Accords that led to the fall of Saigon, to the 1995 Dayton Agreement that ended the Bosnian War but led to the “ethnic cleansing” in Kosovo, ill-conceived peace pacts in the world’s history have often led to greater hostilities. Violence after failed peace pacts intensifies as the parties claim that they were betrayed, infuriating their fighters to fierceness.

This quote, also from the article you linked to is disappointing if true:

The military brass weren’t even invited to the ceremony attended by over 100 MILF commanders. An Army general in the field lamented: “That omission struck deep in the heart of our soldiers. No credit was given for the AFP’s vital role in creating the conditions for peace talks to proceed. Mr. Aquino praised the efforts of the MILF but not the AFP, as if our soldiers were the aggressors, not the noble defenders of our land. ”

How deadly has the conflict been?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../para/milf.htm

On 07 October 2012 it was announced that the Philippine government had reached a preliminary peace agreement with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, the country's largest Muslim rebel group, to end the four decade long insurgency that had killed more than 120,000 people.

relevant history:

Formal peace talks between the MILF and the government began in April 2004, when a peace deal was scheduled to be signed in September 2006. In 2008, when both parties were in the very last throes of hashing out a Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) agreement, the Philippine high court called some provisions unconstitutional and this sparked a rebellion within the MILF that left hundreds dead and hundreds of thousands displaced.

[Bob's World]

What President Aquino is attempting is the most strategic bit of COIN I have seen by any government in the past 12 years. Will it work? Well, there are a 1000 ways it could go bad, but it starts with a strategic level of understanding of the nature of insurgency in general and the nature of this particular problem they are attempting to address. It takes ownership on the part of government to evolve to better address the reasonable concerns of a segment of the populace that has always been treated separately, but not equally.

This is a model we should adopt for Afghanistan. It is the model that the government of Yemen should adopt. It is the model that makes the most sense for the growing challenges Egypt has in the Sinai. Obviously each would need to be tailored to the realities of their specific situation.

As to the author of the article that Dayuhan shared the link on: While that piece surely recommends the majority position on these types of conflicts, I would only offer that the record of the majority is hardly one to brag about...

Thinking about revolutionary insurgency as war is perhaps the least appropriate and least effective way to solve these types of problems that lead to revolution. Yes one can suppress or defeat the insurgent, but invariably the insurgency grows from the process, coming back again and again until something changes in governance or the people prevail.

This is not resistance, this is revolution, and that is a very different type of conflict. The relationship between the parties and the primary purposes for action are the key criteria for framing these types of problems. Ideology applied or tactics employed are interesting at the tactical level, but have little place in a strategic discussion geared to understanding and framing the problem. We in the West are trapped in a world of tactics and one that sees governments as victims in such conflicts. We need to evolve, and this is a great guide for that evolution.