The death of three soldiers from a land mine blast in Paquibato District, Davao City on November 29 once again highlights the doublespeak with which the conflict between the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the New People’s Army (NPA) is being played. The NPA, in particular, is showing itself paying mere lip service to international agreements that it accuses the AFP of violating. The Ottawa Convention in 1997 and the amended Geneva Convention in 1998, after all, ban land mines, but the NPA has been using them against the armed forces with deadly results. Unfortunately, some of the victims have also included civilians who had nothing to do with the conflict, and no amount of explanation from the NPA can justify their deaths.

The NPA says it uses command-detonated antipersonnel mines and anti-vehicle mines, which it claims are not covered by the Mine Ban Treaty. Unlike conventional land mines that explode on contact, the ones used by the rebels are detonated remotely on command. This means the casualties are not indiscriminate since the rebels can choose the timing of the blast.

That is all good in theory, and in the context of war it is even reasonable. The NPA, after all, is outnumbered and overwhelmed by the firepower and machinery of the AFP, and it says it needs to resort to these land mines so as not to be mowed down. But in practice the command-detonated mines are no different from conventional ones for they kill and maim indiscriminately. The latest victims may have been soldiers, but records show that casualties have also included civilians – a number of them children.

The NPA needs to man up to its mistakes and admit that it is in violation of the international ban on land mines. To the victims it does not matter that what kind of mine hit them; a land mine is a land mine, and there is no sense splitting hairs over definitions when lives are at stake.

Profiling

At about this time of the year, the police give a warning to citizens to be wary of robbers, burglars, and other such criminals as their numbers grow with the coming of the Christmas season. No one, of course, disputes the numbers: police statistics do show that crimes against property experience a spike during the holidays, and the prudent citizens prepare themselves for such an eventuality. Indeed, as December comes we accept the fact that we need to be more careful with our possessions since the criminal mind is more active these days.

The problem is that the police – and government, for that matter – tend to blame the increase in crimes on poverty. The argument is that the poor resort to stealing during this time because the opportunity is there: with people getting their bonuses and other gifts, they are easy targets for thieves. The argument goes that since those who have less in life desire more things, they are actually ready to commit a crime just to fill the material void in their lives.

This, of course, is nothing but anti-poor baloney. To say that one sector of society is more predisposed to crime is to be prejudiced to the highest degree. It is a form of stereotyping that has no basis in fact and only perpetuates the bias against those who do not belong to the status quo. After all, the biggest thieves in the world are not the slum dwellers but the rich and powerful, those who plunder their respective nations’ wealth and leave their people to rot in poverty. Our own country has seen countless such people – and yet we still hear our own police and government officials warning us about the poor.

May we suggest that the police stop discriminating against certain sectors and simply do their job? Profiling has no place in a civil society; we are all equal, and each one is capable of both good and evil.

Jon Joaquin is the managing editor of the largest circulation newspaper in Mindanao, the Mindanao Daily Mirror in Davao City.

Have a comment on this article? Send us your feedback