Forum: 2004 Chapter vis-à-vis Defining JPIC Issues

 

As the 34^th General Chapter is about to begin, I thought of reiterating the “defining” issues & challenges that exist in the real world outside of our religious “wall”. This short brief is premised on the belief that the world’s issues & concerns are also “impact” the OMI realities and concerns…

 

The “Defining” Issues that will continue to shape policies and the alignment of forces (political and economic) for the year 2004 are the following:

 

First, the “War against Terrorism” will continue and further divide nations and communities within nations.  Al- Qaeda (AQ), Jama’a Islamiyya (JI), Taliban, Hamas and other Islamist groups will continue to pose threats not only to the US but also to what is perceived as the “West”. The preponderance use of “hard” power over the “soft” power in combating the so-called “Islamists” would only feed on the growing feelings of “clash of civilizations” and “western oppression”.  The continuing use of the “hard” power approach to Islamists would only exacerbate the already “intolerable” cases of suicide bombings and possible direct attacks on specific targets in the West that no longer distinguish between military and civilian characters of the targets.

 

Second, Afghanistan and Iraq were the testing grounds for the outright use of “hard” power in effecting societal changes in the world of Islam. The seeming failure of the “hard” power approach in both countries is providing a window of opportunity to “resurrect” the “soft” power approach policy.  The two examples, though different cases, based on the conditions and history - are actually giving birth to a “new” paradigm of “transitional phases” that include among others, the writing of a Constitution or Charter, “power hand over” and “democratic” local governance.  The “success” - prospects of “normalization” would depend on the dynamics of “pull and push” of power structures that involve religions, ethnicity and “nationalism”. In the case of Afghanistan, it will be  the Karzai Government vs. the ethnic Warlords and in the case of Iraq, it would be between the “appointed” governing Council and in June 2004 to be re-enforced by an “elected” Assembly vs. the Sunni, Shi’ites, the former Ba’athist and the Kurd factors in the Iraq equation.

 

Third, the Middle East, particularly Israel/Palestine, will remain the focal point of war and peace not only between Israel and Palestine but also between the world of Islam and the so-called West.  The lack of any forward movement in the Middle East Peace Process (the mother of all peace processes between Islam and the West) would exacerbate further Islamic Radicalism.  The so-called Geneva Peace Plan is a beginning of a new thinking and a creative approach to the issues of the Palestinian State, the Palestinians’ “Right of Return” to Israel, the Minority Status for the Jewish “settlers” within the future “Palestinian State”, the Palestinian Minority Status within the State of Israel and the question of Jerusalem.  The Oslo Peace Accord and the US Road Map to Peace are actually enriched by the Geneva Peace Plan notwithstanding the strong opposition by the Sharon government.

 

The other issue that needs to be resolved is the role of Yassir Arafat within the PLO.  On the one hand, the present Bush Administration in the US and the Sharon government in Israel do not see any peace process with PLO Chair Yassir Arafat.  On the other hand, Yassir Arafat remains the ONLY acceptable and viable Palestinian leader that unites or holds a semblance of unity between and among the different factions that form the PLO.  The sooner the US and the Israeli governments approach the issue of Arafat with pragmatism, that is, a peace process that includes Arafat, the faster the parties can go back to “normalization” in the Middle East Peace Process.

 

Fourth, the WTO Debates will continue to polarize the divide between the have’s and the have’s not. While the US and EU may show some policy differences vis-à-vis the UN and Iraq, the two are more united in a vision of world economic order at the level of WTO.  The Cancun Trade collapse would, in the short term, delay the implementation of the Doha Development Agenda firmed up two years ago.  With or without trade agreements, there is no way of going back to bilateralism.  A formula is now being worked out to balance the US & EU position on “agricultural subsidy” on the one hand and their position on IPR on the other. 

 

The new “force” that shows its muscle at the Cancun Trade Conference is the “solid unified position” of G 21 (Developing Countries) under the leadership of China, India, Brazil, South Africa and the Philippines vis-à-vis US & EU. The year 2004 will be the time to “reconcile” and “mend” the differing positions vis-à-vis agricultural subsidy and IPR.  With this optimism for the year 2004, the Doha Development Agenda, particularly for Africa’s poorest nations, would be on tract again. Of course, debates as well as the battles shall continue on large scale ensuing from a continued and relentless commitment to FREE TRADE or greater trade liberalization on the one hand, and their perceived and actual “ill” effects on the under-developed and developing nations on the other.

 

Fifth, the issue of HIV/AIDS, particularly in Africa and in a special way in Asia in the coming years, will remain the world’s paramount challenge to survival and sustainability.  Almost one whole generation is dying or would die in the next five years unless all nations and all stakeholders within nations get their acts together in a holistic approach that touches the broad issues from prophylaxis to sexual mores, from health education to access to affordable medicine.  SECAM has come out with a good position and approach in combating the disease though the document is wanting when it touches on preventive measures that seem opposed to its moral belief & values.  Tragically, the HIV/AIDS issue is still being discussed with embarrassment in many quarters.  There is an urgent need to popularize the discussion of all issues involved in combating the disease in order to mount a well coordinated and worldwide campaign against HIV/AIDS. 

 

Sixth, the issue of religion & ethnicity is back on tract. The Zogby International Polling Firm and the University of Rochester’s Religion Department (www.zogby.com) reveal that an increasing number of people accords the bigger priority to religion than politics. To add flavor to the survey, religion polled as a high priority in the lives of more than two-thirds in the lives of Israeli, Muslims and born-again Christians. The new assertiveness of religions and ethnicity, this time, has specific face and character – they are the very “conservative” and often “closed” strains.  In fact, “the religious and ethnic identity permeates groups and provides the well of assumptions that direct decisions and behavior” (Roy Hange. The Curtain of Fire: Religious Identity and Emerging Conflicts at MCC Web Site). 

 

This new factor may prove or disprove Prof. Huntington’s thesis that “the new divisions in the world are defined not in terms of their political or economic systems or in terms of their level of economic development but rather in terms of their culture and civilization” (Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.). This great “comeback” of religion and ethnicity in the public discourses is a product not only of the new “hermeneutic” of internal conflicts that are often replete with religious and ethnic and religious images, stories and symbolism but also by way of affirmation of the truism that the nature of war determines the nature of peace (The WB Special Report from Reconstruction to Reconciliation by Nat Colletta & Taies Nezam). 

 

Regional Issues…

 

Asia

 

§         National Elections in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia in SEA and Sri Lanka and India in SA are crucial in the so-called “War against Terror”, especially so that US policy makers are beginning to see that Southeast Asia is the “Second Front” in the War against Terror (Afghanistan, Kashmir and the surrounding regions as the First Front).  The governments that shall ensue from the national elections will be crucial in the overall approach to the perceived “radical Islam”.

 

§         The Peace Processes that include political settlements, rehabilitation and reconstruction will remain in the main the focus agenda of governments and international communities. In Indonesia, the peace processes will boil down to the government policy on Aceh, the West Papua (Irian Jaya) and the Suluwesi Group. In the Philippines, it will be the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and its allies from both the religious groups and the young Muslim sectors.  In Sri Lanka, the peace process between the Government and the LTTE would continue as priority agenda of the new government. In Myanmar (Burma), the dialogue between the ruling generals and the National League for Democracy symbolized by Aung Su Kyi will continue with the hope of a political settlement that will pave the way to “normalcy” & representative government in lieu of a military junta.

 

§         With all the “noise” both in Taiwan (Referendum issue) and Hongkong (more representative Assembly), the BIG Dragon (China) will remain quiet, because of the 2008 Olympics preparation.  China hopes to eradicate the fear of SARS by then and the Dragon will be fully alive in 2008 “exhibiting” the new face of China to the world – smiling, friendly, modern and the new center of the world economy and trade!  (the Chinese “agenda” will remain the world’s priority focus in any equation!)

 

Africa

 

§         HIV/AIDS.  Of the estimated 40 millions diagnosed as HIV/AIDS – positive, 2/3 are found in the continent.  Governments and institutions including churches need to put all their resources to confront the issue headlong.

 

§         Internal Conflicts would continue to define the relations not only between and among the many and varied ethnic groups but also between and among “stakeholders” of Africa’s rich mineral resources.  Prominent cases will be Nigeria, Sudan, DR Congo. Burundi & Rwanda.

 

§         EU’s involvement and stake in Africa will be bigger and greater owing not only to its geological and historical links but also to the common future vision of EU and the continent.

 

§         The broad array of Development issues, particularly agricultural sustainability, will dominate the agenda for Africa.  But the crucial issue here is the question – Who defines the agenda?

 

Latin America

 

§         The Free Trade debates will be the main battle lines in Latin America. Lines will continue to be drawn by the issues involved with Free Trade and the relations with their big neighbor (the US).  The future of NAFTA, ALCA and other trade groupings lies in the reconciliation of issues between free trade, local resources and the share of the people in the benefits of said resources.

 

§         The push and pull in the relations between the Indigenous Peoples and the so-called national identity and unity would define the conflicts that involve resources and Free Trade.

 

§         Drug Trafficking will continue to be a dominant issue in the region.

 

 

Main