Peace out

Rhona Canoy

SO… This is not political, although the references may be. For those who know me well, all my political views are referenced from a human standpoint. As they should be. Because all that we perceive, all that we react to, all that we assume as our reality is from a personal and human perspective. This week’s big news items were the government’s statement of a moratorium on the drug war, and the NPA-CPP’s disavowing of the unilateral ceasefire. I suppose I’m going to have to get into some vocabulary issues here.

First, let’s get the drug war business out of the way. If you are paying attention to all the news releases, the government’s activities in curbing our drug situation has not been stopped, but rather put on hold while the PNP cleans house (we hope). Let’s not get into the issue of extra-judicial killings because that would take a series of articles, and I don’t like to get into that discussion unless it’s a face-to-face situation.

Second, the NPA-CCP issued a statement (and because I’m too lazy to Google for accuracy, the words following are my own interpretation and understanding) to the effect that the unilateral ceasefire will end on Feb. 10. Here’s where I got more confused. Doesn’t unilateral mean one-side? It was my understanding that the government side was who decided to implement a ceasefire. If it was the NPA-CPP, then I am more severely ill-informed than I thought regarding this matter.

But before I get  lost in the blackberry bushes, let me get back on track. If it was indeed the government who effected (I’m still conflicted about the grammatical validity of this word) the ceasefire, then it shouldn’t matter a rat’s ass if the NPA decides to keep firing their guns, although we hope that they would choose to d the same. Or are they saying that effective Feb. 10, it will be okay if the AFP fires back? Does it mean that the NPA can attack any time they please? Aren’t they already doing that?

Ultimately, my question comes back to this: Is there any hope that all this fighting will end? It seems to me that the point of contention is whether NPA-CPP gets what they want. Whatever and how ever many whose demands may be. So for as long as our government feels that the demands are unreasonable, there is no peace in sight. Personally, I don’t think this crap is ever going to go away simply because nobody knows what the CPP endgame is. I don’t think the release of all their political prisoners matters other than to make a statement. I still have to do tons of reading (a daunting task for an almost-blind Bee), to have a glimpse of the big picture. But there is a humongous endgame, of that I am sure.

By nature, humans are violent cowards. We will go to war, we will die for a principle, we will drown like lemmings in the sea for ideas we espouse but know nothing about. We will burn our neighbor’s house because we don’t like what they said. We will slash the tire of the car parked next to ours because they are too close for us to open the driver’s door. Violent. But cowards too because we are afraid to open our minds to the possibilities. We fear what could be because it may not be what we want or to our liking. We’d rather argue than discuss. And then we get personal.

I’ve come to the conclusion (a lot based on my own experience) that all conflicts are born out of the simple feeling of dislike. And that’s difficult to reconcile because our emotions tend to lean towards the illogical side. And yet we are intelligent enough to find some logical (even if convoluted) justification for our dislike, and why we are right. Call it what you will, but if emotions (such as dislike and hatred) are taken out of the equation and everything becomes an intellectual disagreement, there would be no wars. That’s just my opinion, and to paraphrase Editor-in-Chief Herbie Gomez, “…your opinion is s#i7.” I guess it is only if I don’t agree with him. And so saying, this just might be my last column!

To be peaceful is not cowardly. To think that peace needs everybody to be on the same side is.