It seems the peace formula is being resisted, even ridiculed coming as it does from a partisan like the Libyan leader who has been known to be an ardent supporter of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Why, indeed? The Gaddafi Peace Formula is a sound concept. Unity in diversity underpins the formula. Not only is it a fundamental truth in nature, unity in diversity has been used on other occasions with varying political interpretations and these have worked: warring France and Germany when they came together in the European Coal and Steel Community then and as partners in the expanded European Union, Black and White South Africa after a bloody struggle.
Peace will not come with the creation of walls, however fair, to separate warring groups which at best is only a respite from hostilities. The task is to put up a political structure which would unite adversaries together and create an environment (admittedly a long process) to learn to live with one another. That will take time but the concept is sound and should therefore be worked at instead of continued insistence on re-drawing borders.
Reservations about the proposal, it seems to me, comes more from the lack of trust in Gadaffi as the proponent of ‘Israetine’. It should not come in the way of exploring the concept of bringing together warring elements under a unified political system without sacrificing the identities of the protagonists. This is one of the virtues of a federated state. The Libyan leader may be partisan but that does not diminish the fact that he has offered a sound formula for peace. Gaddafi’s peace formula without Gaddafi. Whatever the outcome, the world will be grateful to him for pushing the idea.
First step would be to create a peace committee of the best minds among Israelis and Palestinians. They must be individuals with impeccable character and dedicated to finding a solution to bring about peace. Politicians and grandstanders should be kept out. The Israeli-Palestinian partnership for peace should include other eminent persons who will lend their talents for the purpose. It would be a good idea to include living Nobel Peace Prize awardees and legal experts in the committee. This is only a start. I have no doubt in my mind it will evolve into bigger ideas that cannot be encompassed in an article like this.
The International Labor Organization has put the Philippines at the top of labor exporting countries, surpassing Mexico as the largest source of migrant labor. Unlike Mexico, where most go illegally to the US, Filipinos are all over the world. "They are laying pipelines in Siberia, mining diamonds in Angola and sailing ships in the world’s oceans. They clean thousands of homes a day from Hong Kong to Dubai to London says ILO immigration specialist Manolo Abella .An estimated 8 million overseas Filipinos remit between $14 billion and $21 billion to their families back home. It is no good just saying this reflects our failure to provide jobs. There are other factors driving Filipino migration. Indeed it can be viewed as a badge of success rather than one of failure. I have another theory. Rather than feel despondent about the figures, I would describe it as the Filipino’s revenge and therefore a source of strength.
In the 70s when Filipinos began the trek out of the country, policy makers saw migration as a short term solution to the economic shortfall. We needed dollars to pay off our dollar-denominated loans so other countries welcomed Filipinos because their earnings would pay for the loans. If I am not mistaken, there was a Marcos decree that would have forcibly channeled their wages into the banking system. I know that is the case with Filipinos who first went to the UK. But things have a way of going out of hand and before long it was not just about the dollars they earned to help pay the country’s debts, migration became its own reason for being.
I’ve met Filipinos in London who came because they had a relative or a neighbor who had made it. From tens it spiraled to hundreds and from hundreds to thousands. The host country itself had its own reason for welcoming Filipinos – their need for Filipino workers, for example, nurses in the UK. With both the outward push for better earnings and the inward pull of other countries in need of Filipino labor, it is not surprising that it should grow into proportions that had not been expected.
Rather than deplore Filipino migration we should initiate policies to take advantage of the phenomenon: maximize its benefits to the workers themselves and to the Philippines and help alleviate the problems they encounter in host countries. As an exile in London, I know we have not done enough for them precisely because we regard migration as something to be ashamed about. So while Senator Ralph Recto may be right to deplore that there are 42 towns without doctors because of migration, it is not a problem unique to the Philippines. If prosperous countries like the US and the UK lack medical personnel, it is not for lack of money or jobs. They would rather have British and American nurses, but there just aren’t any locals picking up the jobs so they have turned to the Philippines.
There is nothing we can do against a world where the value of currency is supreme. It is not only about pay scales but also about exchange rates. "The entry level pay for a government physician is P17,799 a month. If a doctor works abroad as a nurse, he or she can get this for three days of work," Recto said. Short of depriving individuals of their right to travel and choose work, how can one fight against that?