PEACE MONITOR

AN ISSUE DIGEST OF THE POLICY GROUP

June 2016

Volume III, Issue No. 4

Nexus of Internal and External Security

The Peace Process and Terrorism
In the Philippine context, most of the GIDA areas (geographically
isolated and disadvantaged areas) are also conflict affected areas precisely because of the continuing
cycle of underdevelopment and insurgency: the presence of rebel groups and the security instability of
areas prevent and/or demotivate investors. Having low or minimal economic activity impacts negatively on
the employment opportunities and sources of livelihood of communities, creating a fertile ground for
rebellion and radicalization of dissent. Hence, rebel groups find GIDA areas as natural hubs of their
operations precisely because of their isolation and conduciveness to radicalization.
In framing peace as a function of development, it is natural to propose solutions that are also within the
development frame:
roads, electricity, water, livelihood. The peace process has utilized this
developmental solution in finding a just and lasting peace. In fact, since the time of the Commonwealth
period until the present context, most if not all of the solutions to insurgency capitalized on livelihood and
economic security of rebel groups from the Homestead policy, the National Reconciliation and
Development Program (NRDP), the National Program for Unification and Development (NPUD), the
Kalayaan sa Barangay Program (KBP), the Peace and Development Communities (PDCs), the Social
Integration Program (SIP), and currently, the PAMANA, the Comprehensive Local Integration Program
(CLIP), and the Sajahatra Program all of which have very strong developmental approach. Some
analysts argue that the primary reason why the peace process is still unfinished is because of the
unfulfilled development agenda of the State.
The emergence of international terrorist groups, the appeal of which transcends geography, economic
class and even educational background, has challenged the dominance of the development equals
peace framework. While most of the members of these groups are still from the GIDA / underdeveloped
areas, the fact that these terror groups equally appeal to members of the middle class and the educated
elite tears down the basic premise of underdevelopment equals rebellion. In this context, politics, more
in particular, an inclusive political system, more than development, enters prominently in the discussion.
If in the past decades, terror groups were mostly located in Middle Eastern and African countries, at
present the reach and tentacles of these groups have transcended borders such that terrorism is now,
more than ever, considered as a major global security problem.
In the Philippines, security forces believe that the most vulnerable groups to (sympathize with) terror
groups are communities/ groups that share some common or similar realities: i.e. communities that are
economically disadvantaged and geographically isolated, and the people share the same/ similar history,
religion, and ethnicity. So, the same areas which are prone to rebellion likewise appeal to terror
organizations as recruitment base.
Shifting focus? Balancing the Internal and External Security Concerns
In a democratic society, security forces are expected to provide effective and efficient provision of security
that satisfies the demands of state survival and protection of citizens, as well as contribute to regional

stability within a framework of democratic governance, rule of law, respect for human rights and
international humanitarian law.
Specifically, the State through its security forces (military and police), is expected to:

1. Ensure that internal security stability is maintained;

2. Enhance the resilience of communities against human-made and nature-induced disasters; and
3. Ensure that external security/ territorial sovereignty is promoted and sustained.
However, in a context where there is threat of terrorism, an additional agenda is added: to prevent/
dissuade individuals/ groups from gravitating towards violent extremist groups. As mentioned above, the
proposed response to deal with the issue of terrorism must go beyond development interventions; a lot
now depends on political solution. Here now lies the rub. Political solutions, in the context of national
security, must deal with the demand to balance individual rights and collective welfare.
The UN Security Council has issued Resolution Nos. 1267 (1999), 1373 (2001), and 1624 (2005) that
collectively propose measures in dealing with Al-Qaeda, Taliban, and associated individuals and entities.
These measures facilitated the creation of the UN Counter-Terrorism Committee.
In the Philippines, the Human Security Act (HSA) was passed to deter would be terror groups. However,
the HSA has been viewed by many as an unimplementable law given the too stringent measures it
imposes to prevent violators from abusing the draconian character of the law. Needless to say, the
Philippines has an anti-terrorism law, but it has not been fully utilized for fear that it will impinge on
individual human rights.
And the Philippines is not alone in this dilemma. While the challenge of terrorism is real, measures to
counter it dangerously waltz with the protection of human rights and due process. UN Human Rights
mechanisms have continuously express concern as regards the need to ensure individual rights especially
in a context where definition of terrorism or terrorist activities are vague or broad and hence may infringe
on or may be used to suppress freedom of opinion, expression and association.
UN Special Rapporteurs and independent experts raise the concern that the multiplication of policies,
legislation and practices increasingly being adopted by many countries in the name of the fight against
terrorism which affect negatively the enjoyment of virtually all human rights civil, cultural, economic,
political and social.1 The body added that counter-terrorism measures have both a direct and an indirect
impact on the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. The measures adopted by States to
combat terrorism often pose serious challenges to economic, social and cultural rights.2
Thus, (s)tates must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations
under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular
human rights, refugee, and humanitarian law.3
The challenge, hence, for the Philippine state, is to ensure that its development agenda benefits especially
the marginalized, and to ensure that its political processes are inclusive, rights-based, and satisfies the
progressive ideal of the next generation.
References
1

UN Commission on Human Rights, Effective Functioning of Human Rights Mechanisms, 3 August 2005, E/CN.4/2006/4.
UN Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms while Countering Terrorism, Martin Scheinin, 21 November 2007, A/HRC/6/17.
3
UN Security Council, Security Council Resolution 1456 (2003) on combating terrorism, 20 January 2003, S/RES/1456 (2003).
2

For comments & suggestions, you may e-mail: peace.monitor.opapp@gmail.com