Following their participation in the Peace Research Institute Oslo’s panel discussion on Taking Away the Guns: How Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration Can Contribute to Peacebuilding, UNIDIR researcher Hana Salama sat down with Professor Miriam Coronel-Ferrer for a wide-ranging conversation. As the first female chief negotiator to sign a major peace accord with a non-State armed group, Prof. Coronel-Ferrer reflects on her experiences in the Philippines peace process, the challenges of integrating diverse perspectives into negotiations and the evolving role of women in peacebuilding across Southeast Asia.
Q: What inspired you to take part in the peace negotiations in the Philippines?
A: The short answer is the conflict. The conflict in the Mindanao region in the Philippines has been going on for the longest time, and as part of civil society, myself along with others have been campaigning specifically for a meaningful political process to settle it. Every time the government withdrew from a process or violence broke out, we engaged with the parties to come back – to talk again, restore the ceasefire and resume dialogue. When the opportunity came with a new president taking office and a new team being formed, I was asked to join the peace negotiation team. I accepted the job without hesitation.
Q: How would you characterize this conflict?
A: It was a typical ethno-nationalist movement, born out of colonial history, the construct of the state, and center-periphery dynamics. It wasn’t a religious conflict, as some have assumed, although religious identity – specifically Islam – is a significant part of the identity of the Bangsamoro people in Mindanao. So yes, there’s a religious dimension, but at its core, it was really an ethno-nationalist conflict.
Q: What do you think the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda brought to peace negotiations, particularly those you were involved in?
A: The WPS agenda created awareness that there should be additional voices in the room, specifically those of women. Secondly, it raised the issue of responding to women’s needs in conflict and post-conflict situations by including gender-specific provisions in peace agreements. That was very much part of the dynamics when we resumed the peace negotiations in the Philippines in 2010 – the fact that the other side had no women, and that many of us on the government side were women was striking.
When we began negotiating specific provisions – starting with the first document, the Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro – it included an iteration of rights. One of those was about women’s rights being guaranteed under the new political arrangement. So from the beginning, the agenda was there, although we faced difficulties in keeping it in the agenda of the negotiations.
Eventually, some of those challenges were overcome. We couldn’t include everything, and that’s why I view it not as a one-time effort but as a continuing process. In this specific case in 2010, what couldn’t be achieved during the political negotiations was addressed in the next phase – through the legislation establishing the new autonomous government.
In that phase, more guarantees were provided for women and also for minority indigenous communities. In brief, the WPS agenda created awareness, consciousness and even responsibility. I didn’t represent women’s groups – I was appointed by the president and represented the president. But as a woman, there was a responsibility and expectation to carry that agenda into the negotiating room. On the other side, it created some defensiveness if women’ issues weren’t being addressed – and that’s a good thing. It did not always lead to inclusion, but at least the issue remained on the agenda.
Q: Can you expand on the difficulties you faced in the negotiations?
A: Women’s rights and other issues raised by women were often seen as interference – something external, and not essential to the core issues we were negotiating. But over time, it became integrated through specific provisions and actions, such as bringing in, first, one woman, then two, on their side. Eventually, they accepted the idea of a woman chairing the government’s negotiating panel, which was a first.
Women had always been part of the government team, but never in that leadership role. So that was new – especially for them. Initially, it created discomfort, but I think it was something they ultimately overcame.
Q: What do you see as the remaining challenges, particularly in Southeast Asia? And how is the role of women’s civil society groups evolving?
A: When you look at community initiatives and peacebuilding at the grassroots level, women are everywhere in Southeast Asia – especially in conflict-affected areas or regions threatened by violent extremism. Women have taken the lead. They’ve organized and developed creative programmes to address violence and political instability in peaceful, comprehensive ways.
But at the middle and upper levels, as part of governments for example, women are still not very visible. That’s been part of the ongoing campaign. The seeds are there. Leadership changes, and with it, the commitment to gender equality can vary.
It’s a continuous struggle. Sometimes you move one step forward, and then under new leadership, two steps back – but you keep pushing. Once women are organized and realize they have agency – that they can make change – there’s no going back. You can’t just push them aside anymore. So it becomes a cumulative process.
Q: Do you have any examples – maybe from your region or negotiations you’ve participated in – of women involved in disarmament processes? What were the outcomes and challenges?
A: As usual, very few women are formally acknowledged in disarmament demobilisation and reintegration (DDR) processes as combatants or included in the official rolls for benefits or even the headcounts that were agreed on. That is also true in the Bangsamoro process.
Today things are different. In Myanmar, for example, many women are fighting there – not just in ethnic groups but also in the People’s Defence Forces, which include members of the majority Burman community. Yet women’s involvement in formal disarmament processes has generally been very limited, both in numbers and in actual participation.
The inclusion of women is becoming more common in peace agreements. In our own peace agreement in the Philippines, in the final annex on normalization, we did mention women. We also included them in discussions around economic development and politics. But it was and still is an uphill battle.
The Independent Decommissioning Body (IDB) part of the peace agreement in the Philippines, which was responsible for overseeing the decommissioning of MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front) combatants and their weapons, is one of the few bodies in our implementation infrastructure with no women. That’s how it turned out. But awareness is growing. There’s now recognition that women should be specifically included in DDR – not only as combatants but also as widows or members of affected communities.
Q: What would you change about how peace is negotiated? What advice would you give to women in the region who are facing different types of conflicts and want to contribute to peace?
A: When women see other women doing peacebuilding – at the community level and in higher-level politics – it becomes real for them. That’s the first step. It starts with the women themselves.
Then they have to overcome the barriers within their own cultures. It’s hard for outsiders to lead that change. We can catalyze, but we can’t sustain it. It must come from within the communities – whether the constraints are cultural, religious, family or clan-based.
So, for those of us outside, it’s about accompaniment – supporting them in ways that are sensitive to their culture and context.
Networking is also essential. Without networks, women remain isolated in their own spaces and never become a collective political force. That’s why we still need women-specific activities. Otherwise, in mixed meetings, women often get sidelined.
We also need to engage men – talk to them about the kind of partnerships that lead to meaningful political outcomes. Because in the end, peace processes should be about meaningful partnerships – for everyone, men and women alike.
