Possibly a bit overrated. In substance this isn't all that different from the model Marcos used to disable the MNLF: offer a nominal autonomy, get senior rebel leaders into lucrative positions in the new autonomous government, and get them inside the tent pissing out instead of outside the tent pissing in. The people, of course, still get pissed on, and those left out in the cold become prime bait for recruitment by more radical or violent groups, just as those left out in the cold in the MNLF settlement were ripe for recruitment by the Abu Sayyaf.
This kind of settlement is not a solution. It can provide a window of opportunity within which a solution to the real problems can be pursued, but unless those problems are recognized and confronted, that isn't likely to happen. There's little evidence that this is happening.
That would depend on perspective. Many Muslims in the souith (and many of the indigenous groups in the north) do see Manila's military and the settlers as an occupying force, and might consider themselves to be a resistance.
The author of the article is in the camp of the previous administration, and has a vested interest in opposing the agreement, but the points he raises are repeated by many who don't like the idea. In many cases the reflexive reaction is that the agreement is an act of appeasement toward terrorists. How the deal will fare in the legislative brance or the courts is difficult to predict, but the administration does have a fair degree of influence in both.
For me the biggest problem with the agreement is that it treats the problem purely in terms of political structure, with no acknowledgement of the degree to which political culture has obstructed all efforts at development and peacemaking. As long as the culture of corruption, abuse, and elite impunity continues, structural approaches will have limited impact. Manila's problem, as ever, is less how to bring the rebels within the rule of law than how to bring its own agents within the rule of law.
Bookmarks