Overcoming a Bitter Legacy

Central to all problems facing Philippine President Corazon Aquino is the question of how to bring her divided country together. The call in the Philippines for "reconciliation with justice" is based on principles that promise a lasting and true reconciliation.

A basic element of this justice is correcting the unjust social, economic, and political structures that initially spawned the insurgency. A second element is bringing justice to those who suffered under the Marcos regime. The struggle for control of the countryside under the Marcos regime produced much bloodshed and many abuses of human rights.

President Aquino has said that only a Philippines that is united in peace can address the first question of basic injustice. Certainly a desire to end the bloodshed and bitterness has been expressed by many Filipinos. However, before Philippine society can close ranks, many are saying that it must first deal with the realities of past human rights abuses. This question is, in part, political, and one which Aquino has already moved politically to address. But there are also underlying moral questions of conversion, repentance, and forgiveness, which the Philippine church is now addressing.

As a society the Philippines is marked by basic social and economic inequities. The wealth of the country is controlled by a minority, causing more than 70 percent of the population to live in poverty. While the Marcos government gave lip service to the needs of the poor, the basic social and economic equations changed even more heavily in favor of the wealthy minority during his regime. This callousness forced many poor people to go outside government channels for a solution to their problems.

Aquino acknowledged this fact in an April 20,1986 address at the University of the Philippines calling for a ceasefire between government and insurgent forces. Acknowledging that the insurgents have just demands, she added, "I know that the roots of insurgency are in the economic conditions of the people and the social structures that oppress them. We must address ourselves to these conditions vigorously if we are to hope reasonably for a lasting peace." She asked the insurgents to accept a ceasefire in order to allow the country time to address these problems: "We can [ address these problems] successfully only if we have peace in the first instance. And so I am calling for it."

Aquino's ceasefire proposal has been met with cautious approval by the National Democratic Front (NDF), the umbrella organization which has coordinated the efforts of the insurgency. In a March 31, 1986 statement, NDF spokesperson Tony Zumel said that a nation-wide negotiated ceasefire is possible. He also declared the readiness of the NDF to work to address deeper issues. "We believe that more than just a ceasefire can be pursued afterwards as more substantial changes are made in the economic, political, and military spheres favorable to the broad masses of the Filipino people," he added.

Both the government and the NDF say their call is based on the Filipino people's deep desire for peace. Zumel's statement calls the NDF's response a "manifestation of support of the Filipino people's legitimate aspiration for democratic peace." President Aquino said in her address, "Our people are weary of war. They want to explore the opportunities of freedom and savor the fruits of peace. Too many have been orphaned or widowed in the struggle to be free. The time for peace has come."

IT IS PRECISELY the presence of those widowed and orphaned, however, that leads to the second part of the call for reconciliation with justice. No matter how much longing there is for reconciliation; certain facts of recent Philippine history cannot be ignored. The insurgency and counterinsurgency in the countryside have left a bitter legacy of torture, rape, salvaging (summary execution), and murder of those suspected of involvement with the New People's Army (NPA).

Recognizing the need to address these questions, Aquino has formed a human rights commission, headed by human rights lawyer and former Sen. Jose Diokno. This commission, according to Diokno, is charged with prosecuting those who committed human rights abuses, as well as idemnifying human rights victims. Diokno has stated his intention to pursue violators of human rights as far as the evidence takes him.

A focus of the commission will be the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP). During the Marcos regime, the AFP was characterized by human rights abuses. Task Force Detainees, established in 1974 by the Association of Major Religious Superiors of the Philippines, has pointed to 1,895 killings committed by government security forces between 1974 and 1984. It also reported the disappearance of 471 people during that time. Government forces had grown increasingly brutal in dealing with the discontent of the people, illustrated by the September 20, 1985 massacre of 27 unarmed civilian protesters in Escalante, Negros Occidental.

However, the military played a crucial role in the "snap revolution" which brought Aquino to power in February 1986. These events were precipitated by a military insurrection led by Marcos' Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile, Gen. Fidel Ramos, and other members of the so-called reform movement of the AFP, which sought to clean up the image of the military.

Aquino essentially inherited the AFP intact, including those such as Enrile and Ramos who had served to enforce the Marcos rule. She also "inherited" many members of the military who have been pointed to by human rights organizations as abusers of human rights. Aquino has brought some of these men into strategic positions of power in her government. Thus, a Diokno investigation of human rights violators includes not only Marcos officials but officials now a part of the Aquino government as well.

Certain members of the military, including members of the reform movement, are resisting the investigation. Some members of the reform group privately admit their participation in human rights abuses. In the Manila Sunday Times Magazine of March 23, 1986, members of the reform movement, who refused to be identified, admitted to having typed up "enemy lists" for the Marcos government in 1972. They pointed out that only one person on the list "got away," and they talked about their professionalism in making "clean hits" and "wasting 'enemies' without leaving any evidence."

At the same time, it is clear that they feel their participation in bringing Cory Aquino to power should shut the door on that chapter of their lives, and that those who call for justice are motivated by political considerations. "All those people agitating for justice," one military figure said, "are unwitting tools of the Left."

THERE ARE CHURCH PEOPLE who see the AFP role in bringing Cory Aquino to power as so crucial that it should preclude the need for an accounting of past wrongs. In an interview on March 21,1986, Cardinal Jaime Sin, a longtime Marcos critic, dismissed questions about Enrile's and Ramos' support of martial law and the abuses that went with it. "What happened is because of Enrile and Ramos," he stated. "If it were not for those two, Cory would not have sat down [ assumed power]." Sin quoted St. Theresa as saying that God is not very good with arithmetic, and added, "God is very forgetful."

It is more than just what the reformers did, however, that prompts these calls for forgiveness. There were many accounts in the days following the February events of "conversions" of individual soldiers. Millions of Manila residents surrounded Camp Crame, the bastion of the troops who mutinied against Marcos, protecting the reformist soldiers with their lives. Loyalist troops sent by Marcos to retake Crame were met not by hatred but with open arms by the civilian population and showered with food, flowers, cigarettes, and other gifts. The emotional power of this experience of acceptance by the population is said to have converted individual soldiers from a view of themselves as defenders of an oppressive regime to defenders of the people.

But while church people here seem to be open to the possibility of such conversions, some strongly resist the idea that reports of such conversions must be accepted uncritically, or that such conversion reports alone should preclude an examination of violations of human rights. Indeed, this group feels that a true conversion will necessarily manifest itself in the lives of those who are converted by a willingness to take responsibility for past actions.

Lorenzo Bautista, professor of theology and ethics at Asia Theological Seminary, says that what happened to the soldiers was a psychological conversion, similar in some ways to a theological conversion. "Both consist of a radical change in outlook," he says. "For the military, this change will affect their attitude toward detainees, loyalties toward those in power, and the realization that the military was not really for the people in the past."

According to Bautista, one can expect a certain progression after a true conversion. "Biblically, confession is necessary. Then, some form of restitution must be shown. Then a lifestyle that would show evidence that one has repented."

Other churchworkers support this position. According to Al Senturias, a United Church of Christ human rights worker, any coming together that does not include confession is inadequate. "We want reconciliation," he explains, "but not cheap reconciliation. If people are to forgive, they need to know who they are forgiving and what they are forgiving."

This thought is again reflected by former Sen. Diokno, who views confession as a "trigger" for forgiveness. "It is not simply forgive and forget," he emphasizes. "We'll forgive, but you must, at the very, very least, admit that you're guilty, if you are."

YET CONFESSION, as necessary as it is, still leaves troubling questions. What should be done about those deeds that are confessed? Some military men have even claimed that a buildup of uneasiness or revulsion about the human rights abuses they were committing is the reason they became reformers.

Fr. Ed de la Torre, S.V.D., got to know many soldiers during his nine years of imprisonment under the Marcos regime. He feels that there were legitimate conversions among the military. "But what do you do," asks Fr. Ed, "with a man who says he joined the reform movement because he couldn't salvage one more person?"

Sr. Lydia Lascano, president of the National Organization of Women Religious in the Philippines, accepts confession as an absolute prerequisite for forgiveness, but she also calls for concrete manifestations of the sincerity of the confession. She speaks of Defense Minister Enrile, for instance, who for many years helped to prop up the Marcos regime. "Enrile has no moral basis to stay in office. In order to prove his sincerity, he should resign."

For other offenses she calls on the offenders to find appropriate actions of penance. "If you have killed, tortured, or maimed, this involves finances for the future. If the man you killed was a breadwinner, there must be financial support for the daily needs and education of his children."

Fr. Ed often speaks of the problems involved with trying to decide what degree of accountability for past wrongs may have to be accepted based on political and social realities and calculations. Very often the larger strategic questions seem to trivialize or cover over the fact that thousands of people suffered grievous personal injustice. "I'll go to a panel discussion," he explains, "and talk and analyze and rationalize. Then those of my fellow prisoners who were tortured begin to talk, and I begin to cry."

Certainly there are no easy answers to these questions. They blend elements of compromise, strategic considerations, anger, pain, and intense personal experiences. There are hard choices to make. The Filipino people will have to live with their choices. They must make them alone. In many important respects, it is not legitimate for North Americans to become involved in the reconciliation process facing the Filipinos.

However, the Marcos government was not alone in its abuse of the Filipino people. For years the United States government has supported and strengthened elements in Filipino society that protected the business and military interests of the United States. For 20 years the U.S. government supported Marcos, even while it knew of the abuse and alienation that were occurring. This raises the question of whether the U.S. government should share in the responsibility for the restitution process.

"Certainly the U.S. government should consider its own responsibilities for its support of an abusive dictatorship," answers Sen. Jose Diokno. Sadly, instead of helping with reconciliation, the United States continues to be seen as exerting a negative influence in the Philippines. "Our biggest problem i&still your government," says Diokno.

WHAT IS THE CALL to individual Americans who feel the need to take responsibility to counteract and repent for the actions of our government? Are there things that we can do that would be appreciated by Filipinos? Is there a process of reconciliation between the people of the United States and the people of the Philippines that is equivalent to the process of reconciliation among the people of the Philippines themselves?

Filipinos are suggesting that there are such actions. In many cases actions will follow the pattern of reconciliation that is suggested for Filipinos, where a new way of living will bear witness to a new outlook. In many cases actions will be symbolic, counterbalancing the U.S. government as it continues its old, abusive patterns of behavior. And often the steps Filipinos suggest will be hard to follow. But, they say, there are indeed things that can be done that will help.

A first priority is to oppose increased military aid to the Philippines--aid which will encourage a "military solution" to the insurgency question. U.S. military and State Department officials have already urged the new government to "professionalize" the AFP so as to be able to finally eradicate the insurgency. With a ravaged economy, Filipinos are telling us to ask our government to send economic aid instead of military aid. "You should send us more food, more aid for education," urges Cardinal Sin, "not military weapons. That will just be used to kill."

"We were able to deal with the fascist dictatorship nonviolently," says Archie Leggo, a professor in a church school in Manila. "Let us deal with our insurgency nonviolently."

Filipinos are not merely asking Americans to take their word for the need to halt military aid, however. They are suggesting that Americans take the initiative to learn what their military aid does to the countries to which it is given. They urge Americans to learn about the U.S. bases in the Philippines, to look more deeply into the motives and underlying principles of U.S. foreign policy. "U.S. foreign policy has to be evaluated from the standpoint of social justice, not merely economic and political self-interest," says Lorenzo Bautista.

"Learn to know the history here from the point of view of the oppressed people," suggests Sr. Lydia. "I was made to study United States history, your civil war, your commanders, your important cities. I didn't know any of our own history. I learned our history from the viewpoint of the oppressor."

"The world economic order works against poorer nations, including the Philippines," says Bautista. "This cannot be easily changed, but it is obvious that there is a miscarriage of justice along the way somewhere that prevents the masses of Filipinos from enjoying the resources of their own country." This miscarriage of justice includes U.S.-based multinational corporations which, according to Sr. Lydia, "are standing on thousands and thousands of acres planted to bananas, palm oil, and pineapples."

The Philippines is a country where actions speak in deeply symbolic ways to issues. In this culture there is much room for exploring actions by which individuals or small groups can testify against the economic, political, and military inequities in the relationship between the United States and the Philippines.

Even when these small symbolic actions cannot change basic patterns, they will speak to individual Filipinos. Americans cannot tell Filipinos what they ought to do, but they can work against U.S. military aid and other aspects of U.S. policy that make it more difficult for Filipinos to work together.

Dave Schrock-Shenk was a Manila representative of Mennonite Central Committee and worked with the Human Rights Commission of the United Church of Christ of the Philippines when this article appeared.