Bias for Life vs. Demands of (National) Security?

By Rev. EUTIQUIO ‘EULY’ B. BELIZAR, JR., SThD
August 26, 2007

“When soldiers and civilians die in free self-giving sacrifice for their country, that makes them heroes; but when, in truth, they are sent to death to protect a regime…”

In the Philippines we are all aghast at the sight of flag-draped coffins of soldiers who have died in the on-going Mindanao war between government forces and the Abu Sayyaf plus its allies from the MILF and MNLF. Television footages or accounts of decapitated or mutilated bodies make us recoil or gasp in horror but hardly lie. “It’s a waste of lives,” Roman Catholic Bishop Martin Jumoad of Basilan recently lamented. Absolutely no one from the conflicting forces openly disagrees. The bias for life as expressed by the bishop is rarely, if at all, questioned in the land of Rizal. But its slow downgrading is being subtly shown in our life-for-national-security government culture.

On the one hand, the scenario of the dead, the dying, the wounded, displaced families and the innocent being victimized by the crimes of a few has the makings of a public relations nightmare for the government. It has sparked chorus after chorus of protests from civil, religious and ordinary concerned citizens. On the other hand, the Philippine government insists there is no other way to deal with the perceived terrorists than to crush them. And the seeming public relations nightmare that the deaths of soldiers have become is fast being turned into a public relations offensive.

In other more democratic countries (the U.S. for one) governments strictly keep the media away from covering the arrival of and funeral rites for the casualties of war to avoid demoralizing the population; here the media have become society’s celebrity-and-hero makers, something the government is keen to use.  First off, media coverage of mutilated, decapitated or plainly killed soldiers has beefed up support for the government war effort by inciting desires for revenge from the majority (Christian) population from whom majority of the dead soldiers come. Second, by hailing the dead soldiers as “mga bagong bayani (new heroes)” and giving them public honor is also, in effect, clothing the life-for-national-security culture with a mantle of nobility.

Though national security is often seen as the requirement for the survival of the nation-state by the use of political, economic, diplomatic and military powers, in real terms the survival at stake may not necessarily always be that of the nation-state itself but, instead, that of an individual or group in power. Therein lies the crux of the problem in Third World countries like the Philippines. And in the haze and maze of political language the truth could be easily sugar-coated or effectively hidden by half-truths or seemingly common-sense non-truths.

The idea of national security in the country appears at times dressed up as economic development and peacekeeping. Recent statements from Malacañang (cf. Philippine Daily Inquirer, August 20, 2007, 10) are very telling. “Economic development, which we draw from the arsenal of democracy, remains our principal weapon against terrorism,” so spoke Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye quoting President Macapagal-Arroyo. Ms. Arroyo continued: “Ongoing peacekeeping operations against rearguard actions of a despised and defeated group are meant to clear the path for these provinces’ journey to peace and progress which terror has delayed for so long”.

I remember reacting to this statement spontaneously: “If this group was already a ‘defeated group’, how come they are still around and inflicting heavy casualties on our military and bleeding our national coffers dry?” Or it could also be asked, in the context of the global war on terror, whether our government’s actions are not only meant to allay local fears but also to impress on the international community that we are not sitting on our avowed commitment against terror. Nothing wrong with that, but which nation(s) in particular?

But what about our role as Church vis-à-vis our bias for life? May I share a few thoughts.

One, although we admit that life is not an absolute value as Jesus himself affirmed in word, that is, by teaching about love as expressed best in giving one’s life for one’s friends (Jn 15:13), and in deed, that is, by himself dying on the cross for us (Catechism for Filipino Catholics, no. 996), still human life is the foundation of all other the other gifts of God to us. If we were not alive, democracy or national security would be meaningless. Respect for human life is a must because Jesus Christ, God’s only Son, has done so, and more, by becoming a human being himself. “And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” (Jn 1;14).

Two, life is, as the CFC text above again states, “the necessary condition for actively loving others as well as their receiving our love”. If so, then we must love, not downgrade, human life itself, not only of our soldiers or of people who share our political beliefs but even of the enemies of state or of our political enemies. Human lives are equally precious, however much we bewail, as we should, the inhuman war practices of some (enemies of state). It follows, therefore, that for the media to treat the fourteen soldiers’ deaths as of more consequence than those of forty-two enemies the government forces killed is to trivialize human life and the common dignity of all human beings. The uncivilized behavior of an enemy does not humanize doing a similar course of action.

Three, the Church must always raise her prophetic voice against the abuse of military force against unarmed civilians and its dismissive disregard of the value of human life as “collateral damage”. When soldiers and civilians die in free self-giving sacrifice for their country, that makes them heroes; but when, in truth, they are sent to death to protect a regime or prop up its image to its international supporters, the war effort in which they die is anything but moral. The leaders responsible for the war have blood in their hands.

Four, the nation-state, like every individual human being, has the right to protect itself. But the use of armed conflict as a means of self-protection raises questions. Not least of which is whether peaceful means have been exhausted, whether there is a just cause, whether it is aimed and actually protects human rights, not violate them, whether it actually can succeed, not prolong indefinitely the sacrifice of human life and human rights, whether it relies solely on the unexamined judgment of an individual or a few, whether it is a last recourse (CFC 1042). I wonder if any of these criteria are even considered by our government war planners and implementers.