Below is a final essay I wrote for my internship reflections. It’s not scholarly work, but merely a synthesis of the lessons I gained in Mindanao. Only a few minor edits have been made for the broader audience.
Kalinaw.
Introduction: A rich time of learning
Mindanao is alive and vibrant with a richly diverse cultural makeup, abundant flora, fauna, animal, and land resources, and beautiful people. Just beneath this abundant beauty, however, Mindanao’s soil burns red with a barely concealed undercurrent of violence, injustice, poverty, and discrimination, that with one cut, one match, or one misstep, is ready to flare back into open flames. This context is unsurprisingly rich in opportunities for learning, even in a short stay of five months.
Between July and December, Mindanao was rich, alive, and beautiful. A festival highlighting the diversity of Davao’s regional indigenous people and cultures – Kadayawan – took place in August bringing color, song, dance, and food to the city for over a week of celebration. Work opportunities also took me twice to areas of central Mindanao, in August and in November, seeing more closely the beauty of the Mindanao island and of its people engaged in peacebuilding. Negotiations between the MILF and GPH[1] in Kuala Lumpur successfully led to the signing of the Wealth Sharing annex to the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro (FAB) in July and the Power Sharing annex in December. Supporting the peace negotiations, civil society organizations across the island have been active in conducting dozens of consultations on the future Bangsamoro.
But between July and December, Mindanao also deeply suffered. In August, Mindanao suffered a spate of bombings killing several dozens and injuring over a hundred in Cagayan de Oro, Cotabato City, and surrounding highways and areas. In September, a crisis in Zamboanga City erupted which led to clashes between Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) combatants and the Armed Forces of the Philippines for 20 days, a major break of the MNLF-GPH ceasefire agreement which was signed in 1996. It left thousands displaced, hundreds killed, and several barangays totaled in destruction. Closest to home, two bombs also went off in movie theaters in Davao City in September. In October, a major earthquake brought great destruction to Bohol and the surrounding region, causing significant displacement of families, businesses, and disruption to daily life. And in November, Super Typhoon Yolanda ripped through the Visayas causing the death of over 6,000 people and leaving many previously thriving cities and towns to mere rubble.
As I reflect on the five months I’ve spent in Mindanao, I also recognize a lot has happened on a personal level. The internship experience with CRS has been a significant journey, with many unexpected challenges and great emotional and mental energy spent, leading in time to significant personal learning. … My experience has also been beautiful with many wonderful new relationships formed, great research opportunities and connections, the opportunity to see literally breath-taking scenery and enjoy unparalleled natural beauty, and enjoy new experiences of food, life, and culture in a country and region of the world I had never been before.
I reflect in this paper on these experiences through synthesizing my learning in three areas: the Mindanao conflict context, peacebuilding work, and myself.
Part 1: Nuancing the Mindanao Conflict Context
This is not a conflict between the MILF and the GPH. The “conflict in Mindanao” is a misnomer. There is no singular “conflict” in Mindanao, nor are its main players restricted to the two groups currently in negotiations- the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. When a bomb explodes or violence erupts, the culprits, if found or identified, are from a range of groups: MILF (though very rarely now that they are in negotiations), the MNLF (Moro National Liberation Front; before Zamboanga their activities were also rare given that they had an established ceasefire with the government since 1996), the BIFF (Bangsmoro Islamic Freedom Fighters), the NPA (New People’s Army), the ASG (Abu Sayyaf Group), local formalized groups such as CAFGUs (Civilian Auxiliary Forces Geographical Units), local armed groups, families involved in rido (clan conflict), neighbors in land conflicts, or gangs.
Furthermore, the fighting between the MILF and GPH has the same roots as the fighting that occurred between the MNLF and GPH and the BIFF and GPH. In many ways, the “conflict” being negotiated for peace agreement now is the same conflict that was negotiated into a peace agreement in 1996. Similarly, roots of poverty and inequality and frustration with government are also the roots of the current NPA struggle and “former” struggle with other communist armed groups.
Even if the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro, the future Bangsamoro Basic Law and Bangsamoro region and governance established through a final and comprehensive peace agreement signed by the MILF and GPH proves to be a solid and positive step for peace, “the conflict” in Mindanao is still not over. The long-standing issue, whether you frame it as inequality, “the Moro problem,” exclusion, unjust land policies, corruption or more – is complex and is not changing in many significant ways. I do believe that each peace agreement seems to learn from past mistakes and gets a little better at addressing underlying issues, involving key stakeholders, and finding ways to maintain accountability post-agreement. At the same time, until there is no longer easy access to weapons for everyone (I’ve yet to hear a good idea for this), or until there is no motivation for violence (often emerging from systemic injustices), then I hold out little hope for any magic potion for peace to emerge from the signing of the final peace agreement between the GPH-MILF.
People living in and identifying with the Bangsamoro region and struggle are not unified. This should come to no surprise to peacebuilders who understand that behind every collective unit and statement stands individuals of diverse persuasions and perspectives. Nevertheless, through conversations I learned of a level of difference I wouldn’t have known from reading published reports and books. Some Muslim indigenous people (generally termed Moro people for whom the Bangsamoro struggle focuses on and is led by) who have lived in the soon-to-be-named Bangsamoro region since time immemorial do not ascribe to the name “Bangsamoro.” For some, the name is a new imposition of identity that they have not owned. Furthermore, many non-Islamized indigenous people in the region do not subscribe to the name and are worried that the future Bangsamoro governance will not take into account their needs and perspectives. Additionally, the transition from the current ARMM (Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao), created through the 1996 agreement with the MNLF, to a Bangsamoro region, created (though not implemented) through the 2012 framework agreement with the MILF, is a cause of concern for many including how MNLF and MILF leaders will continue to relate together in a new governance system.
On the other side, many people who are non-Moro (Muslim indigenous) who live inside the Bangsamoro region, and Moro and non-Moro people outside of the Bangsamoro region – support the cause and identify themselves as Bangsamoro, increasing the solidarity for the movement across divisions and increasing the diversity of voices supporting the new Bangsamoro region and identity.
The struggle for justice and land for the indigenous peoples (IPs) is not a side, niche issue, but is fundamental to future peace in Mindanao. I’m among the many who get caught up in majority narratives. What is women’s role in peacebuilding? What is the indigenous person’s contribution to peacebuilding? While these issues are deeply fascinating for me, I still at times can treat them as niche stories. These narratives of minorities are important, significant, and equally valid but are outlying and therefore in numbers, seem to suggest a lesser importance. But as the Moro cry has shown, you cannot marginalize a group for centuries and get away with it. You cannot indefinitely silence people’s voices. Not only is it dangerous to do so, it is morally unacceptable.
Land is one of the fundamental factors of the conflicts in Mindanao. Land is also fundamental to the identity of the IPs. The IPs are therefore vital players in sustaining peace in Mindanao. Given the reality that the Bangsamoro includes non-Islamized indigenous people, the question of their future must be an active part of the negotiations and conversations about the future Bangsamoro.
The government has had active peace panels with the various armed groups over time. But traditionally, the IP communities have been nearly non-existent as participants in armed groups. Some may argue whether this less militarized approach has led to a lack of inclusion of IPs in peace and political negotiations for the future of Mindanao. There have been strides for greater inclusion and appreciation of IP rights. In 1997, the Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) was passed, acknowledging the original inhabitants of Mindanao as rightful owners of the land. Unfortunately, implementing related policies under IPRA and attempting to reconcile conflicting tenurial instruments has meant that recognition of indigenous people’s rights and their ancestral domain has been slow to progress.
IPs also face the challenge not only in the lack of legal support for their rights (for which IPRA was a significant gain), but in the fact that they have been moved off their land and they exercise a more dominant oral (non-written) tradition which continues somewhat to today. Over the years of an unjust past, foundations have been solidified for a complicated present. It’s too late to erase, forgive, or re-adjust the wrongs of the past to a level that would be commensurate with the need. For example, with land, the IPs have been moved off their lands many times and the lands that were once theirs are now inhabited or developed by an assortment of other landowners. The IP community cannot just claim back their land without having to address the reality of current settlers on their land.
Secondly, unjust land policies were able to be implemented in part because they were based on a written system of documentation which was foreign to the IP communities. Transactions were made without the full consent of the IPs, creating a solid paper trail for those who took over the land from the IPs, and leaving the IPs with little written proof of their historical title. Additionally, many IPs are very poor and have been marginalized from mainstream services. Some IPs remain poorly literate, keeping progress slow for addressing the wrongs of the past. Many groups are now working to increase educational opportunities, including understanding legal mechanisms that operate in the Philippines, in order to better support IPs in standing for their rights.
Healthy, functioning governance, from local-level leadership to the congress in Manila, is essential for peace. Words on paper in negotiations only go so far if they are unable to be implemented. The government-mandated inclusion of peace education in the school curricula is one example of this. The government has mandated peace education to be incorporated in schools and many regions have also mandated schools to be set up as “zones of peace.” Unfortunately, many educators are not even aware of the mandates, and if they are, the content of the peace education may vary widely. Further, many of those that have been designated as a “zone of peace” to encourage a safe zone away from fighting groups have done little to implement the mandate other than putting up a banner which states the area as a peace zone.
Furthermore, government-mandated local mediators are not contributors to peace in their existence, but in the positive implementation of their work. Lupong tagapamayapa (LTs) have a government-mandated role to bring peace to their communities by helping to settle disputes which arise, with a greater flexibility in doing so than if a case was formally taken to court. Many communities, however, have weak or unestablished LT systems, which does little to promote dispute resolution.
As already mentioned, if resources are not shared equitably and distributed to those most in need due to incompetence in governance structures and leadership, peace will continue to stumble. Not surprisingly, the wealth sharing annex to the FAB took significant effort to come to an agreement. The recent “pork barrel” scam that erupted in congress is yet another sign of governance not working as it should, and a sad reminder that a lot of wealth still only gets passed to a few, even when it is mandated to be distributed among the most needy.
Furthermore, the future of the Bangsamoro and the current peace negotiations lies in the ability of the congress in Manila to agree to the terms of the agreements being drafted. As the final drafting of the agreement comes closer, some peace advocates are expressing nervousness and uncertainty about its ability to hold water with the decision makers in Manila. Some are beginning to express concern as to whether congress members in Manila are adequately aware and educated on Mindanao’s complex realities and challenges. In many ways, consultations in Manila can be just as crucial for ensuring peace as consultations in the Bangsamoro. Mindanao People’s Caucus is one group I spoke with who is active in advocating in Manila for more awareness and commitment to the peace process. In all these areas, healthy functioning governance is critical for Mindanao’s future peace.
Part 2: Lessons in Peacebuilding Work
While Mindanao is a vibrant location of peacebuilding work, best practices are still being worked out. Dozens of organizations are active in working for peace across Mindanao. Many have worked hard to develop networks with each other. Mindanao Peace Weavers (MPW) is one such example, a network which includes sub-networks of the Consortium for Bangsamoro Civil Society, the AGONG network, and Panagoy (each broadly representing the tri-people of Mindanao: Muslims, Christians, and IPs) as well as individual organizations. MPW has been able to make significant strides in bridging divergent peace groups and engaging in dialogue, to the extent of recently developing the Mindanao People’s Peace Agenda, a working document of peacebuilding goals for Mindanao. However, while the network has been a strong voice for peace in the region, they have yet to develop mechanisms whereby they may collaboratively work together. That is, prioritizing and identifying members’ activities in such a way to ensure complementation of engagements and actively reduce duplication or overlap of activities. At this time, however, the relationships and networks which have been built have enhanced and reignited previously inactive communication streams.
While there are many examples of good practice in peacebuilding in Mindanao, the undertaking for bringing about peace in Mindanao is significantly complex and intensive. Leaders in peacebuilding at CRS are quick to point out that their peacebuilding efforts are but one small contribution on both the scale and timeframe of what’s necessary in Mindanao. Therefore, unsurprisingly, gaps still remain. One of the more noticeable gaps I observed was that the lines of collaboration and communication between the official peace process actors and civil society members were weak. When government peace representatives shared the progress on drafting of the annexes for the peace negotiations or transition efforts in developing the Bangsamoro Basic Law, I was surprised to hear of some areas, such as transitional justice, which had not received significant notice in dialogues. With so many peacebuilding actors on the ground, it was surprising to hear that national processes were not fully reflective of the wisdom and practice present in the country.
I also found it disconcerting that public consultations on the framework agreement – helping local communities understand the peace agreement and the new Bangsamoro – are only now significantly underway, when FAB is nearly complete following negotiations. The consultations can serve many purposes, two primary ones including educating the public on the new agreement and secondly eliciting responses and feedback for consideration in its drafting. This latter one seems to be particularly vital for ensuring that a final agreement will be owned and accepted by local communities who ultimately ensure the peace. However, with many consultations only now being undertaken, the opportunity for feedback is significantly diminished. I would have concern that consultations can come across appearing like a blank check of support and pushing endorsement rather than critical engagement or developing a deeper level of ownership by all stakeholders.
These challenges, however, are of course not new for many governments engaged in peace efforts. Of interesting note, in my conversations with peacebuilding colleagues in Mindanao, I was intrigued to hear about significant linkages with former activists and civil society leaders who took up positions in the national government, especially in the Office of the Presidential Adviser to the Peace Process (OPAPP). As a result, civil society in Mindanao appears to have experienced a minor “brain drain” of sorts where competent civil society peacebuilding leaders have moved into government roles. Some of this is positive – that government officials have personal experience of grassroots peacebuilding and civil society efforts in Mindanao, but it also generally represents a moderated voice for peace as leaders have to balance their prior activist roles with the slower movements of institutionalized government peace efforts.
A government-supported peace process office appears to be a very progressive move. However, as with many institutionalized social efforts, the peace office also allows the efforts for peacebuilding in the Philippines to be confined to one niche office, rather than a priority for the entirety of government agencies. Furthermore, the bureaucracy can cause frustrations. Just recently one of the local peacebuilders expressed frustration that after a year of a project proposal to OPAPP for consultations on FAB, for which OPAPP specifically pledged to support, they looked for internal funding because the time would be lost in the wait rather than in action. Indeed, in terms of civil society’s action in pushing the peace agenda, much is limited because of the lack of funding – not the lack of interest, willingness, or ability.
Furthermore, over years of peace efforts, many sectors of Philippine society have adopted peacebuilding language and have integrated its terminology, if not always effectively implementing its principles. The national government promotes a “culture of peace” and as previously mentioned, has mandated peace education in school curricula, local mediators in every barangay, as well as adoption of alternative dispute resolution recognition. The Armed Forces of the Philippines has drafted “Bayanihan,” an Internal Peace and Security Plan, and has drafted an Army Transformation Roadmap, among other peace-related efforts. In January 2012, the new Commanding General of the Philippine Army said the following:
“Bayanihan presents to our people a choice between continuous armed struggle and peace. It’s been more than four decades that we have been embroiled in conflict. Armed struggle is not the solution to our problems. On the contrary, it has brought a lot of suffering and misery to our people; so many lives have been lost, so many futures have been destroyed, not only on both sides but also those caught in the middle as well. We have lost dear friends and family. Let this be our motivation to win the peace!”[2]
Similarly, many development agencies active in Mindanao have branded their work as “peacebuilding” even if elsewhere the work would still be considered traditional development practices. Terms such as “conflict transformation” and “peacebuilding” are used frequently in civil society peace organizations and have even filtered through government agencies. Despite the frequent use of peace language, the mandates for peace education and peace activities, and an official government department devoted to peace, “peace” remains elusive. The next step is surely to help ensure that language and policy are implemented and peacebuilding is practiced and not just spoken about.
Solid peace interventions are built on rigorous research, well articulated theories of change, and inclusive of multiple opportunities for reflective learning, feedback, and modification. As a natural “do-er,” I sometimes struggle to take the time and energy to do the necessary research and preparation needed for ensuring best practice. However, CRS peacebuilding in Mindanao seems to do such research and preparation as a natural reflex. In preparation for the A3B project, CRS conducted a baseline survey throughout Mindanao researching areas of land conflict, speaking with a variety of actors in each area. Previously, the entire peacebuilding team had developed a comprehensive “conflict map” of Mindanao, articulating the shared understanding of history, factors, actors, and interventions for peace and conflict in Mindanao. These are just two examples of in-depth research CRS has undertaken to determine its peacebuilding approach.
Through practice, CRS also expects learning to happen iteratively, in conversation with partners and through experiences in implementing the planned interventions. They expect to adapt plans and structures of a project based on learning gained through feedback sessions with partners and community members in the areas where they are active. They continually engage in reflective practice, taking precious time to gather as a peacebuilding team at regular intervals to consider the impact of their interventions. They also build into the project regular opportunities for feedback and learning with partners and community members. And as the project continues, it is not uncommon, as has happened twice since I have been here, to initiate additional (previously unplanned) feedback learning opportunities for participants in the project in order to improve practice and learning.
Activities may be planned, but rarely happen as originally planned. The calendar of activities for A3B and its partners is extremely detailed with all aspects of interventions and consultations planned and scheduled in advance. However, while all efforts are made to work according to the original plan, more often than not, the plan is modified. Interruptions and disruptions are varied – from rainstorms, elections, local violence, personal inconveniences, security concerns, and natural disasters, to name just a few. In my personal work plan, field visits in preparation for my documentation work was originally scheduled for September, but was not realized until the last week of November. The delay was a result of a series of security travel bans and the realities of local elections.
Another example is the shifting priorities for the peacebuilding team. The disparate bombing incidents in August caused a series of security travel bans for staff and partners for safety concerns. In September, the Zamboanga crisis erupted and CRS staff travelled to the area to support local peacebuilders and assist in the development of longer-term peace responses. In October, some CRS staff were relocated for emergency assistance to Bohol to assist earthquake survivors, and in November the entire CRS Philippines agency strategy shifted to prepare for a 2-year effort in assisting the devastated Visayas and assisting in relief efforts for super typhoon Yolanda survivors. These efforts also entail peacebuilding staff taking 1-3 week shifts in assisting the relief efforts. In the midst of these “interruptions,” the main thrust of the peacebuilding programming continues. The context is clearly dynamic.
A people-first orientation filters into every aspect of programming. While I often equate a people-oriented peacebuilding approach with community consultations and participation, I have witnessed CRS staff implementing this mindset in all levels of their activities. While CRS staff accompanied partners in leading a training event for TRLs in Polomolok, I watched as CRS staff consistently encouraged and challenged the partner staff to lead the workshops, even struggling through their uncertainties, when they could have led the sessions with their eyes closed. CRS team members articulated their commitment to partner staff leadership, even when partner staff may lead activities differently, and occasionally less helpfully (depending on criteria used), then CRS staff would. This approach continued to capacitate and support local leadership of partners, which is in many ways a by-product of CRS’ mindset and not even a clearly articulated project goal.[3]
I also witnessed in final reflection activities with the PGM (Peace Governance in Mindanao) project that CRS staff ensured that community leaders and partner staff took the opportunity to lead the discussions and present the outcomes of the project. Rather than CRS staff members leading the discussions on outcomes, the discussions were presented and led by partner staff. Additionally, in storytelling processes, CRS patiently and openly received whatever stories were shared. One of the recorders present suggested it would’ve been more helpful for the CRS project data for the stories to take a particular shape and orientation. The response, however, reminded those present that the storytelling is “not about us, it’s about them.” Therefore the orientation was to listen to the stories which were shared as hallowed personal sharing of those speaking, to let the speakers “claim their space” and speak their voice – not any pre-determined voice or agenda, just their own and what they wished to share. The approach consistently attempted to put CRS’ goals second to the learning, development, and peace efforts of the people CRS partnered with.
Part 3: Opportunities for personal development
Being an effective peacebuilder entails efforts in self-reflection and self-improvement as much as developing key skills and understanding theories. I entered into this internship with a significant level of self-confidence. I had spent time overseas in both work and personal travel capacities, short-term and long-term in both rich and poor contexts. I had four years of bachelor-level education on peace and conflict and several continuing education courses on related subjects. I had been active as a peacebuilder in diverse contexts for all six of my years after my undergraduate education. In fact, I felt that my prior experience wasn’t fully acknowledged when the internship experience was framed as a new and essential experience in “real life practice,” as if my colleagues and I had not yet had “real life practice.” But, as thankfully happens to many arrogant souls, I fell firmly on my face and was reminded of the lack of experience I had in many critical international peacebuilding areas.
I knew I had much to learn about peacebuilding – that was the primary motivation and excitement I carried with me as I went to the Philippines. I was terribly excited to be in a country that was in the heat of action in peacebuilding work with a long history of peace and conflict efforts from which to reflect and learn. I learned that although the practices of conflict transformation trainings I was very familiar with were used quite similarly within the Philippines context, I had a lot to learn about field-based rural community engagement, peacebuilding during a time of conflict, peacebuilding within a national peace process, and more.
Work and play, and personal and professional are false dichotomies in the Philippines. Being 100% “professional” and work-oriented is not welcome in the Philippines. Connecting on a personal and relational level, even in the middle of the work day, is just as essential – and sometimes more important – than completing your tasks. This is exemplified in the frequent celebrations in a Filipino workplace. Celebrations are made when you become a full staff member, when you leave your work, when you have a birthday, complete a project, or of course when there is a holiday. Sometimes celebrations are made with no particular reason attached.
It is also exemplified in the experience I had with so many of my colleagues. As I reflected on the gifts they offered me throughout the past 5 months, I realized for many of them a major gift was their willingness to give me full attention and a listening ear when I approached them with a question. While sometimes the conversations felt rare because of the busyness of activities, I would often be warmly received with an appointment for a time to talk about questions I had. In these conversations, despite the reality that those I was speaking with had extremely busy schedules, I felt as though they had ample time to speak with me, and were generally happy to do so. The same phenomena happened when opportunities emerged to connect in informal ways also. This is an indescribable gift and one I hope to replicate in other areas – the ability to give someone your full attention when they’re speaking with you, despite your level of busyness, whether it’s passing in the hallway or sitting down for a scheduled appointment.
Being a cultural glutton is different from being culturally sensitive. I have always thrived in different cultures, eagerly experiencing new traditions, foods, and ways of living. This was no different in the Philippines. However, in this experience, different from past experiences, I lacked a level of cultural immersion I was used to and realized I was also navigating the internship without a “cultural guide” in the form of a close friend or colleague. However, a major learning I faced was realizing that I failed to amend my behavior to take note of these deficiencies. I got caught up in what was important to me and my needs, and failed to appropriately consider the needs of others. This was not only cultural miscommunication but was unrestrained self-centered behavior. Somehow I let my lens for cultural sensitivity drop out of use and ended up with frustrating experiences and wounded relationships. While not everything was explicitly a result of cultural miscommunication or mismatch, had I been willing to fully engage in a humble approach in my relationships I would have prevented some of the regrettable incidents which occurred.
What are legitimate roles for foreigners in local peacebuilding efforts? This is an ongoing and yet unanswered question for me. I continued to reflect significantly on it while in the Philippines. CRS gave a great opportunity to see an iNGO in action. I saw how an iNGO can look very “local” when nearly all of its staff members are nationals of the area in which it works. But I also was confused by a key administrative role which seemed to be created exclusively for foreigners – the head of office. From my understanding, CRS-Davao has only had a foreigner “head of office” role for the last few years. I’m confused by the position because it seems that local staff members would do just as good of a job, if not better, as a foreigner – especially one who is likely to only stay for a few years. While I have asked around, I haven’t yet received a satisfactory answer to the quandary, even though I trust there is a reasonable explanation. Therefore I’m still a bit uncomfortable with the role as it currently is.
This also of course raises questions for my own involvement in peacebuilding. Do I want to be in a position working as a foreigner in a different country? Most likely in a place where being white and western would also be a minority? I feel that foreigners can play a crucial solidarity and supportive role for countries and communities facing significant hardships. I also feel that there may be times where a foreigner may have education and expertise which may be helpful to others. But I feel the “foreigner” role is most often filled by westerners in leadership rather than people from the South or “developing” countries, which often can bring with it imperialist attitudes – intended or unintended. I also feel that the “expertise” which may come from someone in a completely different cultural context is hardly ever directly relevant without nuance and explanation. These are my perceptions, partly because I have yet to see many examples of foreigners serving in truly supportive non-expert / non-leading capacities. In short, I’m not convinced that I offer something unique enough to warrant my presence in a foreign country for a short or long period of time. This will continue to be a reflection point of mine.
Conclusion: Important lessons in life-long learning
I have long held the belief that learning is never-ending and a life-long process. This internship has further confirmed that understanding. I was ready to learn in many areas, especially in terms of the Mindanao context of peacebuilding, and indeed I have learned a lot, including beyond the daily work at CRS. I was less prepared, however, to learn about myself and my own unaddressed deficiencies which the internship highlighted. However, all learning is important and critical to development as an effective peacebuilder, and for this I am truly grateful. In working through the experience of realizing my failures and deficiencies, I came to more fully appreciate the hard work of self-improvement and its foundational role in my own development as a peacebuilder. In attempting to be honest with my failures, I had to acknowledge that the image I had created for myself was not as accurate as I had imagined. I had to re-learn humility, and engaged in difficult rounds of dialogue and apology with friends and colleagues.
I expect this internship will stand out in my memory for a long time. It will certainly stand out as my first experience in Asia, my first encounter and engagement with an international NGO, and a great opportunity for catching some glimpses of what “peacebuilding in action” looks like in the Philippines. But it will also stand out as a time when an international experience wasn’t all “ease” and “comfort” and a time when I was challenged to face darkness in my own self. My internship experience will hopefully stand out as a time which birthed a renewed commitment for personal growth and a willingness to work and serve where my skills are most needed – wherever that may be.
[1] Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and Government of the Philippines (GPH)
[2] Coballes, Noel, Lt. Gen. “Philippine Army’s New Commanding General: Assumption Speech.” 22 January 2012. http://atr2028.wordpress.com/ Accessed 1 December, 2013. Emphasis added.
[3] Capacitating local leadership is most certainly an articulated goal of CRS peacebuilding strategy. However, it is more often expressed through capacitating local community leadership through engaging with partners, rather than capacitating the leadership within partner organizations.
justkalinaw 