“The Protracted Crisis in Mindanao: Japan’s Cooperation and Human Security”: Revisited

This academic essay was written for a school paper assignment in grad school. 

The conflict in Mindanao has caused much devastation to the lives of the people (Heydarian 2015). To help alleviate the suffering of Mindanaons and support the conflict resolution among the parties, several international organizations have extended assistance. Of these major international third parties, Japan has taken an active part in many aspects. In the article entitled “The protracted crisis in Mindanao: Japan’s cooperation and human security”, Sachiko Ishikawa and Dennis Quilala illustrated the involvement and comprehensive assistance of Japan to Mindanao and the Philippine Government. The authors examined the various roles played by Japan with a special focus on human security. The obstacles to assistance and how Japan endured them were also highlighted. It is no doubt that this article has an important contribution to the scant literature on peacebuilding and human security in Mindanao. However, while this paper has a strong practical basis and significant findings, its strengths and limitations must be critically reviewed. Hence, this peer-feedback paper aims to unpack the article and analyze its arguments, methodologies, among others.

Ishikawa and Quilala (2018) attempted to answer complex questions regarding the dynamic condition of Mindanao conflict with its volatile actors vis-à-vis the assistance of JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency). Particularly, the authors sought to examine how JICA  delivered its services during the unpredictable peace process while ensuring that Philippine sovereignty was not infringed; how its self-contained assistance was delivered to satisfy the needs of the locals despite the stalemate; and how local ownership materialized on the ground in favor of the conflict resolution. Starting with a concise review of the Mindanao conflict, the article also included an investigation of JICA’s independent support with a novel modality of cooperation and its mediation forum. 

The authors used content analysis and in-depth interviews as the methodologies to help answer their research questions. Using these strategies of inquiry, they were able to come up with findings that backed-up their claims and arguments. First, Sachiko and Quilala posited that despite the diverging intentions of the Philippine government (to facilitate development assistance to stabilize the situation in Mindanao) and Japan thru JICA (to engage in conflict-laden communities while waging the human security banner and improve diplomatic ties in Asia), both countries were able to navigate the issue of overstepping Philippine sovereignty. This is due to the deep-rooted trust developed between both countries over the years. This valued mutual trust coupled with Japan’s self-contained approach allowed JICA as an ODA (Official Development Assistance) actor to deliver socio-economic assistance and engage with MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front). Accordingly, the continued operation of JICA during the peace process impasse can be accounted to trust. The authors highlighted the mediation forum which provided platforms for CSOs and other local stakeholders to voice their concerns during the long stalemate. Second, trust permitted an observed transformation of JICA’s modality of delivering peacebuilding efforts. This is owing to the influence of the human security approach. This integration paved the way to reach vulnerable grassroots communities and extend holistic health, education, and development programs. As a member of IMT (International Monitoring Team), the case of Mindanao inspired a potential alternative brand of peacekeeping for Japan. Lastly, trust fortified a smooth relationship between Japan and the local participating communities. Despite the commendable participatory and multisectoral style of JICA, the authors noted some negative comments to JICA given its alleged limitations of reach, unequal distribution of assistance, and isolationist nature. In the following section, these claims will be reviewed and analyzed based on their merits and constraints.

           This article is among the few research that mainstream the discourse of human security in Mindanao. For that, it deserves the recognition for expanding the knowledge of this approach by detailing the human security practices of JICA in conflict-laden areas. As stated by the authors, the programming of JICA in Mindanao is a deviation from its traditional activities in other countries. With human security, peacebuilding is emphasized along with peacekeeping and peacemaking. This shows that human security is more than superficial rhetoric but a practical framework that can be integrated with other dimensions (Mugunza 2007). As expressed by Sadako Ogata, JICA’s human security style of programming has incorporated both bottom-up and top-down approaches (Japan International Cooperation Agency 2006). The article gave justice to this definition by detailing both the local empowerment and the protection of people in vulnerable communities in Mindanao. However, the arguments and examples of human security could have been expounded further by making the article less descriptive and more analytical. Discussing the challenges at all levels in implementing human security in Mindanao could have further deepened the discourse. Relatedly, understanding how human security was co-owned not just by the locals but also by other actors (both local and international organizations) could have given the readers an idea of how human security is accommodated or resisted. This is of academic and pragmatic importance as Mugunza (2007) argued that human security is a suitable framework for cooperation among actors.  

          The main contention of this article argues that profound trust between JICA and the stakeholders in the peace process granted the successful implementation of new cooperation modality despite the peace process stalemate and hurdles related to sovereignty. The article has strong evidence supporting this claim. With a coherent organization, it presented empirical data on how trust manifested both on the national and grassroots level. On the national level, the authors traced the firm historical cordial relationship between the Japanese and Philippine government. On the local level, Ishikawa and Quilala wrote: “that trust solidified the reliable working relationship between Japan and the local communities for the rest of the peace process” (p.219). This extracted section from an interview of a civil society representative confirms the importance of trust. These arguments on the essential role of trust in peacebuilding are consistent with previous literature (Abramov 2009, Rausch 2012). Notwithstanding this finding on the significance of trust, one can counterargue that other factors related to trust can also explain the success of JICA’s engagement in the Mindanao peace process. For example, the invitation of Japan to participate in the peace process can be attributed to its legitimate and robust record of being a “nonaggressive, courteous, and good neighbor to Malaysia and the Philippines” (Lam 2008). On the contrary to the authors’ assertions on trust, Japan’s pacifist image might have helped settle the sovereignty issue. Relatedly, MILF’s acceptance of Japan could be associated with its non-threatening reputation, unlike other big power countries such as the United States.

          The methodology used in the study enabled the collection of valuable data to answer the research questions. Insightful data of satisfactory depth from the materials analyzed and interviewees contributed to the authors’ arguments. Still, caution should be taken because these purely qualitative methods have inherent limitations (Kracauer 1953, Lucas 2014, Roller and Lavrakas 2015). For instance, a critical reader may ask, “What materials were used and analyzed?” “Who crafted those materials?” “What criteria were used to select the materials and the interviewees?” “How generalizable are these findings?” “How was the process of interpretation?”, among others. On another note, it must be discussed how some form of bias is inherent in every research project (Galdas 2017). It is especially applicable to evaluation-type research. But bias in research can be identified and avoided (Pannucci and Wilkins 2010). In this paper, it is commendable how the professional profile of the researchers might have helped mitigate any problem related to bias. The position of Sachiko Ishikawa as the Senior Advisor of JICA could raise concerns about conflict of interest. But the co-authorship of Dennis Quilala who is a political science scholar from a reputable university may have diminished any suspicion of major bias. These matters must be considered as studies have posed caveat in research production and uptake in conflict-affected communities (Thiessen and Byrne 2018). 

Certainly, the excellence of this research paper merits the attention of peace and conflict practitioners and scholars. The findings enrich the current discourse and practice of human security by exemplifying the experience of JICA in Mindanao. These findings are of primary significance to donor governments and international private organizations that wish to integrate human security in their peacebuilding programs. The brilliance of the authors in shedding light on the requirement of trust in peacebuilding deserves recognition. This article opens the discussion on human security and trust. Future researchers can build on this by exploring the accommodation and/or resistance of local and international actors to human security. Trust can also be further dissected and defined. Also, researchers can investigate other factors such as perceived legitimacy, neutrality, and aggressiveness, to name a few. This will enable the extension of the subject matter. While the methodology used in this study is appropriate for the authors, future researchers should consider the wealth of literature demonstrating the superiority of mixed methods in the pursuit of knowledge (Ivankova and Wingo 2018, Molina-Azorin 2016). Nonetheless, the strengths of substantial content, firm arguments and clear evidence exceed any limitations of this research paper.

References

Abramov, Igor. 2009. "Building Peace in Fragile States – Building Trust is Essential for Effective Public–Private Partnerships." Journal of Business Ethics 481-494.

Galdas, Paul. 2017. "Revisiting Bias in Qualitative Research: Reflections on Its Relationship With Funding and Impact." International Journal of Qualitative Methods.

Heydarian, Richard Javad. 2015. "The quest for peace: the Aquino administration's peace negotiations with the MILF and CPP-NPA-NDF." Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre 1-8.

Ishikawa, Sachiko, and Dennis Quilala. 2019. "The protracted crisis in Mindanao: Japan's cooperation and human security." In Human security and cross-border cooperation in East Asia, by Carolinag Hernandez, Eun Mee Kim, Yoichi Mine and Ren Xiao, 205-226. Cham, Switxerland: Palgrave Macmillian.

Ivankova, Nataliya, and Nancy Wingo. 2018. "Applying Mixed Methods in Action Research: Methodological Potentials and Advantages." American Behavioral Scientist 1-20.

Japan International Cooperation Agency. 2006. Sadako Ogata Explains JICA's "Human Security" Approach towards Mindanao. September 20. Accessed July 30, 2020. jica.go.jp/english/news/press/jica_archive/2006/060920_1.html.

Kracauer, Siegfried. 1953. "The challenge of qualitative content analysis." Public opinion quarterly 631-642.

Lam, Peng ER. 2008. "Japan's Peace-Building in Mindanao: Partnering Malaysia, the Philippines, and the Moro Liberatio Front." Japanesee Studies 45-57.

Lucas, Samuel R. 2014. "Beyond the existence proof: ontological conditions, epistemological implications, and in-depth interview research." Quality & Quality 387-408.

Molina-Azorin, Jose F. 2016. "Mixed methods research: An opportunity to improve our studies and our research skills." European Journal of Management and Business Economics 37-38.

Mugunza, Cristina Churruca. 2007. "Human Security as a policy framework: Critics and challenges." Revista Deusto de Derechos Humanos 15-35.

Pannucci, Christopher J, and Edwin G Wilkins. 2010. "Identifying and Avoiding Bias in Research." Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 619-625.

Rausch, Colette. 2012. Trust: An Essential Ingredient in Building Peace, Justice and Security. November 5. Accessed July 30, 2020. https://www.usip.org/.

Roller, Margaret R, and Paul J Lavrakas. 2015. Applies qualitative research design: A total quality framework approach. New York, USA: Guilford Press.

Thiessen, Chuck, and Sean Byrne. 2018. "Proceed with Caution: Research Production and Uptake in Conflict-Affected Countries." Journal of Peacebuilding and Development 1-15.