Durable peace

It’s the season again when people are dreaming of shortcuts to power, with even relatives of President Aquino jumping into the fray.

It’s no secret, however, that P-Noy has been feuding for some time with his uncle Peping Cojuangco, so it’s no big surprise that the former Tarlac congressman, now head of the Philippine Olympic Committee, has been joining rallies calling for the ouster of his nephew. The presidential power to “dis-appoint” can divide families.

Cojuangco was a power broker during the presidency of his sister Corazon. It’s a role that has been denied him by his nephew.

Significantly, those behind the oust-P-Noy campaign aren’t calling for people power even with the 29th anniversary of the EDSA revolution upon us. Instead they seem to be hoping for a coup d’etat.

Despite all the grumbling and snide remarks about the President and commander-in-chief within police and military ranks, however, I haven’t heard of any serious coup threat at this point.

A coup in this country needs public support, but people power fatigue set in a long time ago, when EDSA 3 was launched two months after Joseph Estrada was ousted as president in 2001. EDSA 1 and 2 forces scoffed at the show of warm bodies by Erap’s supporters, refusing to call the April 30-May 1 event EDSA 3. The size of the crowd was made impressive by religious groups, but EDSA 3 fizzled out as it degenerated into violent vandalism.

As for the hallucination that P-Noy will heed calls to resign, I’m sure his reaction is, “Ano kayo, sini-swerti?” (My favorite translation: “What are you, lucky?”)

Cory Aquino considered it among her achievements that she survived all the coup attempts against her. And P-Noy, after all, is his mother’s son.

*      *      *

That said, P-Noy must be feeling, even within the cocoon of his sycophants, the depth of public disaffection in the wake of the slaughter of 44 police Special Action Force (SAF) commandos.

Last year he saw his popularity plummet when he openly toyed with the idea of amending the Constitution so he could seek a second term. He rebounded after he withdrew the idea and said he was looking forward to his retirement.

The reason for the plunge in his popularity at the time was clear. This time he can’t seem to grasp the nature of the disaffection, which is why he can’t present an appropriate, coherent response.

His confusion is reflected in his pained response to the demands for justice of relatives of the so-called SAF 44, during his six-hour meeting with them at Camp Crame last week. What did they want, he reportedly asked – that the SAF killers from the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and cousins Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) be fingerprinted?

Well, why not? I’m sure this was the SAF widows’ reaction, though left unspoken. As Justice Secretary Leila de Lima has told the Senate, the peace process cannot get in the way of enforcing the country’s laws. We have tough laws against mass murder, harboring terrorists, and any form of thievery including looting the dead.

*      *      *

The state has a right to defend itself. The right to life, liberty and property ranks first in the Bill of Rights in our precious Constitution. Those deprived of that right deserve the due process of law.

Seeking truth and justice does not mean abandoning the peace process. This must continue with anyone who genuinely desires peace, but not with those who use the process for a different agenda.

The state can talk peace while never abandoning its right to protect itself. It must be able to convincingly tell the other party: we can crush you, but because we value life and we want the peace needed for unimpeded development of neglected communities, we will negotiate peace, and provide you the tools needed to become responsible, law-abiding citizens. But for peace to endure, it must be based on a sincere commitment to abandon the ways of violence and obey the laws of the land.

This is negotiating from a position of strength. It’s not warmongering.

When the state talks peace mainly because it fears the threat of the other side to wage war or because it can’t contain threats to its existence, it’s capitulation to blackmail.

The Jan. 25 butchery in Mamasapano, Maguindanao has made people wonder whether taxpayers will be pouring billions into the pockets of a group that has the makings of another Ampatuan dynasty, a group that lies about its continuing arms buildup and its ties to terrorist groups.

Already stories are emerging from Muslim enclaves about the wang-wang attitude of entitlement displayed by those who identify themselves as “Bangsamoro.”

Will the Pinoy taxpayer end up bankrolling the creation of a regional headquarters for terrorism? Considering recent global developments, this is a valid question. The issue must be ruled out before Juan and Juana de la Cruz fork out an initial P75 billion to the Bangsamoro.

*      *      *

If the state, with its immense security machinery, continues talking with duplicitous barbarians, it’s negotiating terms of surrender, not peace.

This is what P-Noy is perceived to be doing, as the MILF makes token responses to his “minimum demands” in the wake of the SAF 44 massacre.

Among the casualties of the Mamasapano clash is P-Noy’s endorsement power, just when it’s most needed by his party. Over the weekend, Malacañang had to declare that his endorsement power for 2016 should not be underestimated.

True enough. But P-Noy should also wonder why people are starting to consider Davao Mayor Rodrigo Duterte as a serious contender for the presidency in 2016.

Duterte’s strong suit is peace and order. Never mind if he is perpetuating a dynasty in his city and his daughter likes slapping people around. He is seen to be tough on troublemakers.

Because of Mamasapano, public safety is becoming one of the defining issues in the 2016 race. And it is linked to the peace process. P-Noy won’t be ousted over Mamasapano, but his endorsed successor may lose.

This shouldn’t stop P-Noy from laying the groundwork for winning the peace.

If he wants peace to be his legacy, he must see to it that it is durable. This can be possible only if it is based on justice and a sincere commitment to shun violence.