BANTAYGOBYERNO
Ike Señeres
EDSA I was a mutiny that turned into a
rebellion. EDSA II was a concert that turned into a demonstration. EDSA III was
a demonstration, period. The only reason why EDSA I gained the stature of a
revolution is because it became victorious.
That is
basically the difference between a rebellion and a revolution. The losers of a
rebellion are simply dubbed as rebels because they lose all the rights to
justify their actions. The winners of a rebellion however have all the rights
to claim that they are revolutionaries, because they have won all the rights to
call themselves whatever they like.
An
unknown writer in www.differencebetween.com says that “revolution and rebellion are two words that are often confused
when it comes to the appearing similarity in their meanings and connotations”.
He says however that there is some difference between the two words, explaining
that the word revolution is used generally in the sense of “uprising”, while
the word “rebellion” is generally used in the sense of “revolt”. In this sense,
it could be said that the true nature of EDSA I is debatable, because it did
not really take on the character of an “uprising”. However, it could also be
said that it took on the character of a massive “revolt”, hence justifying its
character as a “revolution”.
There
is really no hard and fast rule that differentiates revolution and rebellion,
but www.dictionary.com defines revolution as an “overthrow or repudiation and the
thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the
people governed”. On the other hand, it defines rebellion as an “open,
organized and armed resistance to one’s government or ruler”. In this
connection, political scientist Chuck Siata wrote inwww.answers.com that
“in general terms of political science, a rebellion is a large riot against a
government’s particular policy”, explaining further that “in general terms a
revolution is a group of people within a nation that seeks to overthrow their
government”.
Moro Islamic
Liberation Front (MILF) Chief Negotiator Mohagner Iqbal says that he has a nom
de guerre, but it appears that he is referring to his nom de plume.
The
difference between the two might not matter that much to him, but what matters
to most people now is whether he is a rebel or a revolutionary. In his own
words however, he said that the MILF is a revolutionary organization, and that
it has already achieved “revolutionary status”, whatever that means to him.
However, by his own admission that the MILF is a revolutionary organization, he
has in effect admitted, unintentionally perhaps, that the MILF seeks to overthrow
the government, and not simply to resist the policies of the government.
As I
see it, it would have been more advantageous to the MILF for Iqbal to say that
they are a rebel organization that would like to be granted “belligerency
status”. In the books of political science and diplomacy, there is no such
thing as a “revolutionary status”.
Moreover,
there is no such action as the granting of a “revolutionary status”, because a
“revolutionary victory” could only be won by the winner of a revolution (being
the revolutionary organization), and not granted by the loser (being the
defeated government). Actually in real terms, it is the revolutionary
organization that demands the declaration of a “belligerency status” for its
own benefit, but the government (that is still in power) would normally avoid
doing so.
At
this point, it is necessary to differentiate between what an insurgency is, and
what belligerency is. Based on known definitions, it appears that the MILF
fighters are insurgents, and are not belligerents (at least not yet). A
rebellion is either an insurgency or belligerency, depending on what is
recognized by the government in power, or by the governments of other
countries.
Since a
government in power would usually hesitate to grant belligerency status to a
rebellion, the rebels would usually reach out to friendly foreign governments
to recognize them as such. As it is generally understood, a rebellion that is
not recognized as belligerency is considered as an insurgency.
While it is
very clear that an insurgency or belligerency is politically motivated, it is
even clearer that there is no political motivation implied in either brigand or
banditry. Brigands or bandits are nothing more than criminals, and they should
be pursued by the police (but not by the military).
It should also be made clear that the members
of the Abu Sayaf Group (ASG) are mere bandits and are not insurgents; therefore
they should be pursued by the police, and not by the military. However, the
groups that broke away from the MILF could still be considered as insurgents as
long as they keep their political motivation. If they do that, they could be
considered as brigands if they do not commit crimes. Otherwise, they would
already be considered as bandits.
It is
important to distinguish between insurgents and belligerents because the former
do not have any rights as combatants, while the latter would already have
protection under the rules of war, under the Geneva Convention. Technically,
insurgents are not fighting in a state of war, because neither side have
declared war either way.
By
comparison, belligerents are also not fighting in a state of war, but they are
already technically considered as legitimate combatants with certain rights. On
the side of the government in power, it would also already have the prerogative
to deploy the military against the belligerents instead of the police, in which
case the soldiers of the government would also be protected by the rules of
war.
By
directly saying that the MILF is a revolutionary organization, Iqbal seems to
have indirectly implicated the MILF, making it open to the accusation that it
is actually aiming to overthrow the government, because that is what a
revolutionary movement aims for. Sorting through the clutter of political words,
it seems that what Iqbal is really saying is that the MILF is aiming for
autonomy for certain parts of Mindanao, those areas that he describes as
historic “Moslem” lands.
On the part
of the government however, it seems to be fully aware that it could only offer
autonomy, and not independence. Looking back in history, the claim of Iqbal
appears to be weak, because Islam arrived in the Philippines only in the
13th century. Prior to that, all of the indigenous tribes of Mindanao were
either pagans or animists.
In
theory, insurgents are ordinary civilians, even if they actually engage in
combat.
On the other
hand, belligerents are considered as soldiers who are combatants in a state of
war. Civilians who would kill their enemies in an insurgency could be accused
of murder, even if done so in combat. In contrast, soldiers who would kill
their enemies in combat in belligerency could not be accused of murder, because
there is presumably a state of war that exists.
This is the
reason why insurgents would want to achieve belligerency status. It seems that
in Mindanao, the belligerency status of the MILF was not even discussed,
because the negotiations went directly to the signing of the peace agreement.
Senator
Grace Poe had all the good reasons to say that the Mamasapano incident was a
massacre. Again sorting through the lost meaning of words, it could be said
that massacre was the outcome, but there is still that question of what caused
it, or what led to it.
As I see it,
the victims were either killed in combat, or they were executed outright.
Either way however, the MILF fighters on the scene could possibly accused of
murder, since the incident was not covered by the rules of war, sans a
belligerency status. Technically, the incident was not even a military battle,
because the personnel on the government side were not even soldiers, being
simply members of a civilian police force.
No comments:
Post a Comment