GENERAL SANTOS CITY  — How many in Mindanao had expected President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to devote space in her State of the Nation Address yesterday (Monday, July 28) to the 11-year negotiation of the Philippine government with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front – seven years under her watch? The GRP-MILF talks on the ancestral domain and the formation of the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity is crucial to the true state of the nation.

But those who had expected so, should have been disappointed. The Mindanao conflict only merited to be mentioned as the “prime reason” for the “sad irony of Mindanao as a food basket”. I doubt if she was able to impart to her audience at Congress and on television nationwide any decent idea about the conflict aside those from Mindanao.

Take a close look at what she said:

In our 2006 SONA, our food baskets were identified as North Luzon and Mindanao.

The sad irony of Mindanao as food basket is that it has some of the highest hunger in our nation. It has large fields of high productivity, yet also six of our ten poorest provinces.

The prime reason is endless Mindanao conflict. A comprehensive peace has eluded us for half a century. But last night, differences on the tough issue of ancestral domain were resolved. Yes, there are political dynamics among the people of Mindanao. Let us sort them out with the utmost sobriety, patience and restraint. I ask Congress to act on the legislative and political reforms that will lead to a just and lasting peace during our term of office.

The demands of decency and compassion urge dialogue. Better talk than fight, if nothing of sovereign value is anyway lost. Dialogue has achieved more than confrontation in my parts of the world. This was the message of the recent World Conference in Madrid organized by the King of Saudi Arabia, and the universal message of the Pope in Sydney.

In Context

Immediately preceding the four paragraphs is the discussion of microfinance loans for livelihood projects, upland development and agro-forestry initiatives, and jatropha estates. Immediately following, after the irrelevant citation of the encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI, is the paragraph on the integration of assistance and welfare programs under National Social Welfare Program.

In context, the emphasis or focus in the four paragraphs is food production – Mindanao as a food basket. Mindanao conflict is a digression from the context of this portion of the address and, as a reason cited, it is fallacious. (As an aside, all SONAs of Arroyo since 2001 are shot through and through with digressions.)

[The Philippine Daily Inquirer today (July 28) reported this part of the SONA out of context and embellished it with reports on the GRP-MILF negotiation – making it appear that Arroyo had discussed the Mindanao conflict substantially in her SONA.]

Meaningless

To those without background knowledge about the Mindanao conflict, Arroyo’s reference to Mindanao as the “prime reason” for its being the “sad irony as food basket” is meaningless. They must be wondering what “differences on the tough issue of ancestral domain” and “political dynamics among the people of Mindanao” mean – what they are.

How could they have appreciated the resolution of the tough issue and her exhortation to sort “out with the utmost sobriety, patience and restraint” those “political dynamics”? Neither would they appreciate her appeal to “Congress to act on the legislative and political reforms that will lead to a just and lasting peace during out term of office”.

Arroyo presumed that her audience at Congress and nationwide had the knowledge to properly understand what she was talking about. Was she not aware that by presuming so she was just indulging in empty rhetoric?

Misleading

We stated above that to claim the Mindanao conflict is the prime reason for the “sad irony of Mindanao as a food basket” is fallacious. And just as fallacious is the implication of the “sad irony” that Mindanao has failed in its part to supply food for the country. This is suppressing facts – a case of reasoning by convenience.

First, Mindanao is the biggest supplier of corn to the country and is big producer of rice. It is the country’s leading exporter of fruits – banana, mango, pineapple – fresh and processed. The country’s pineapple plantations and canneries owned by Dole, Philippines and Del Monte are in Mindanao; and so are the banana plantations.

Second, the “endless conflict” may have adversely affected Muslim Mindanao but not the rest of Mindanao where economic development has remained uninterrupted. If Mindanao outside of the conflict-affected areas has not yet attained optimum development it is because the government has been withholding development funds from Mindanao in favor of Luzon. Forty percent or more of the national income comes from Mindanao.

As this digression of Arroyo is fallacious, it is most misleading.

In referring to the “legislative and political reforms” she has asked Congress to pass, Arroyo must be concerned about the Mindanao conflict — and similarly so when she said that the “demands of decency and compassion urge dialogue”. Are the dialogues for peace conducted just out of decency and compassion?

Her statement, “Better talk than fight, if nothing of sovereign value is anyway lost” (bold mine)” is portentous. It is a policy statement on the GRP-MILF peace dialogue. Arroyo must have read the draft of the agreement on ancestral domain and must have seen the MILF proposals anchored on sovereignty and territorial sharing so clearly and meticulously defined. It foresees difficulties in the negotiation of the comprehensive compact.

Does the President mean that if, in the negotiation of the comprehensive compact, the MILF proposals will mean loss of “sovereign value” no final agreement will be signed? And the options are clear.

Footnote

As a footnote, Arroyo did not touch the suspension of the August 11 election in the ARMM election in anticipation of the signing of the MOA-AD as part of the peace process – a move that she had endorsed. Is that among the “legislative and political reforms” she has asked Congress to pass?

Or has she abandoned the move knowing the lack of time for Congress to pass the act needed to suspend the election? A bill to amend RA 9054 for that purpose has already been filed in the House. But even there, the bill will be without opposition.

The opposition in the Senate looks insurmountable. According to Sen. Juan Miguel Zubiri, who earlier said he would sponsor the Senate counterpart bill, 90 percent of the senators oppose the suspension. He is the only one who has expressed support for the move which he admitted as “dead” (INQUIRER.net, July 28).

Is there still a need to discuss the postponement? Obviously, none. But the rationale behind the move – that the election is a stumbling block to the peace process and suspending the election will hasten the process — has exposed fallacies that merit in-depth discussion.

Leave a Reply