Peace
talks between the government and the National Democratic Front of the
Philippines (NDFP) are set to resume on April 27 in a neutral foreign venue. A
positive first step, indeed, but peace may remain elusive as old issues
resurface and new ones arise, especially when the talks move to contentious
social and economic reforms.
The
scheduled resumption of talks between the government of the Republic of the
Philippines (GRP) and the NDFP on April 27 was among the agreements arrived at
after four days of preliminary meetings between GRP and NDFP representatives.
Yet the Arroyo administration is apparently divided with sources saying that at
least six secretaries registered strong objections during the first cabinet
meeting discussing the resumption of talks.
The
preliminary meetings were held in the Netherlands from March 6 to March 9, first
in Utrecht and then in The Hague, the country’s capital and the seat of the
International Court of Justice. They revive a process that broke down barely a
year into ousted president Joseph Estrada’s term.
Laying the ground
As
early as Nov. 16 last year, in a consultation with members of the militant Bagong
Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) and
its political party Bayan Muna, then
Vice-president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo publicly expressed her support for
restarting peace talks with the NDFP.
Observers
noted that Arroyo parried most questions during the open forum which made her
response regarding the talks all the more noticeable. When asked whether she
would reopen talks with the NDFP she unequivocally answered that she would and
added that she would renounce the Estrada administration’s policy of
“all-out war.”
But
around that time, amidst the country’s worsening political and economic
crisis, apparently it was not only Arroyo that wanted the talks reopened. Even
president Estrada was compelled to it.
Sources
say that soon after the start of the Senate impeachment trial last Dec. 7,
Estrada sent feelers that he wanted to send an exploratory team to the
Netherlands. The NDFP panel responded that considering the Estrada
administration’s blatant violations of bilateral agreements that led to the
collapse of talks in 1999, there was need for a clear act of goodwill on the
GRP’s part.
The Estrada government
responded by restarting the process of releasing political prisoners in
accordance with commitments it had previously made but not complied with. A list of 77 political prisoners to be
released was presented to the NDFP on Jan. 9 2001 but the NDFP replied that an
actual release would be more significant.
In
an ambush interview on Jan. 10, Estrada explained his decision to resume talks
with the NDFP which had been calling for his ouster. He said in Pilipino, “My
goal is for Filipinos to unite and help each other especially now in times of
crisis.” He even boasted that former Tarlac Rep. Jose “Apeng” Yap was all
set to go to the Netherlands (though the NDFP remained cool to Estrada’s
overtures).
In
any case, the release of the political prisoners was already being processed by
the Department of Justice in the last days before Estrada’s ouster.
Arroyo’s follow-through
Two
weeks after Arroyo assumed the presidency, the secretaries of the departments of
justice, interior and defense finally signed the papers recommending the release
of 73 political prisoners out of the 77 originally targeted. Government
prosecutors were subsequently instructed not to oppose their release.
Sources
say that these would have been done earlier had Executive Secretary Renato de
Villa not delayed the process, ostensibly to consult with the Board of Pardons
and the military.
Nonetheless,
progress on the detainees’ release along with Arroyo’s public reiteration of
her stance to reverse Estrada’s “all-out war” policy set a favorable
atmosphere for the exploratory talks in the Netherlands in the first week of
March. On March 12, Arroyo announced a 30-day suspension of military and police
operations in 11 provinces around Manila as part of the GRP’s
confidence-building measures.
The
GRP was represented in the Netherlands by negotiating panel chair and former
Justice Secretary Silvestre Bello III accompanied by members Agrarian Reform
Secretary Hernani Braganza and human rights lawyer Rene Sarmiento.
The
NDFP was represented by negotiating panel chair and NDFP National Executive
Committee member Luis Jalandoni with members Coni Ledesma and Fidel Agcaoili.
Also present were the panel’s senior adviser Antonio Zumel and NDFP chief
political consultant Jose Ma. Sison.
The
four days of meeting resulted in the initialing of a joint statement laying the
conditions for the formal resumption of talks.
Joint statement initialed
The
statement sets the date for the resumption of talks as April 27 and the place as
a “mutually acceptable foreign neutral venue” in accordance with the results
of the meetings and with agreements already signed by the GRP and NDFP since
1992.
Significantly,
the joint statement also specifies that “the Parties uphold and affirm the
validity and binding character of the ten bilateral agreements that were entered
into between them from 1 September 1992 to 7 August 1998 as the framework and
foundation for the resumption of the peace negotiations.” The talks would thus
build on what has been reached so far.
The
NDFP attributes the breakdown of talks with the Estrada administration in 1999
to the GRP’s repeated violations of prior agreements. Among others these
included non-implementation of the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and
International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), unilateral suspension of immunity and
safety guarantees (in violation of the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity
Guarantees (JASIG)), and setting as a precondition that the NDFP yield to the
GRP’s “constitutional processes” (against The Hague Joint Declaration).
The
ratification of the controversial Visiting Forces Agreement was seen by the NDFP
as “violating the principle of national sovereignty as guiding principle” of
the talks and the last straw.
The
joint statement also provides for the implementation of the CARHRIHL,
reactivation of the JASIG, the forming of Reciprocal Working Committees for the
talks on social and economic reforms, and undertaking goodwill measures.
Lacking
the authority to sign the statement and make it a binding agreement in the
Netherlands, the GRP team instead initialed it and brought it back to Manila for
approval. The joint statement was lined up for the next regular Cabinet meeting
and set for signing by the GRP panel on March 27.
Old issues resurface
The
Arroyo administration is adopting a thrust similar to former President Fidel
Ramos’ with respect to the country’s “insurgency” problems. This is to
create an atmosphere of political stability through peace talks with the groups
concerned. In his time Ramos was able to arrive at a settlement with the Moro
National Liberation Front and the rightist RAM/YOU/SFP.
Under
Estrada, on the other hand, the negotiations with the NDFP and the Moro Islamic
Liberation Front that were carried over quickly unraveled and he declared
“all-out war” against the revolutionary groups. For her part, Arroyo is
clearly trying to regain the momentum painstakingly built up during Ramos’
time.
Yet
within her administration, as with those before her, there are contending points
of view. The initial cabinet meeting discussing the talks, for instance, had
secretaries expressing diverse stands on whether peace talks with the NDFP
should be held at all. It is also the conventional wisdom that there are
high-ranking officials in the military hierarchy opposed to any politically
negotiated solution to armed conflict and who prefer the military option.
The
main line of reasoning of those against the talks is usually that the peace
negotiations as conducted so far give the NDFP an undue status of belligerency.
The
matter of a “foreign neutral venue” particularly serves as a lightning rod
of criticism. Presidential Adviser for the Peace Process Eduardo Ermita, for
instance, has repeatedly said that talks "should be held in the Philippines
and not in a foreign land."
In
a radio interview soon after the return of the GRP panel from the Netherlands,
Ermita said, “The status of belligerency always crops up and what we would
like to emphasize is that these talks are between groups who are all Filipinos.
That is why the talks should not be held outside of the country."
According
to NDFP chief political consultant Sison though, the status of belligerency has
already been “acquired through decades of revolutionary struggle.” It is
something the revolutionary forces have by virtue of the “organized masses of
the people in the territory of the people’s democratic government” and as a
product of their international and diplomatic work.
In
any case, the NDFP holds, it is not an issue and the status is not anyway
contingent on being conferred or denied by the GRP.
The
foreign neutral venue is seen by the NDFP as essential for security as well as
practical reasons. In her last weekly press conference, Arroyo said that the
venue “would be further studied and evaluated by Cabinet Cluster E before we
make a final decision.”
The
joint statement was finally approved by the GRP and signed by its negotiating
panel on March 30. However the
reactivation of the JASIG, one of the points of agreement, has not yet been done
nor has the venue been announced. Nonetheless, Vice-president Teofisto Guingona
and GRP negotiating panel chair Bello have previously said that the formal
opening of talks on April 27 will be in a Scandinavian country, either Sweden,
Norway or Finland.
As
per agreement by the negotiating panels, the start of negotiations on social and
economic reforms will be taken up when talks resume after the elections. The
effective implementation of the CARHRIHL is also on the agenda.
Solidarity conference
The
meetings in the Netherlands also resulted in the idea to hold a “Solidarity
Conference for Peace in the Philippines” in Manila on April 18. The conference
aims to foster solidarity in support of the GRP-NDFP peace talks.
Sponsored
by the National Council of Churches in the Philippines and the Catholic
Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines, the conference will be participated in
by the GRP and NDFP—including members of their negotiating panels—as well as
organizations of the basic sectors, peace advocates and civil society groups.
More
difficult negotiations ahead
Since
the peace talks started, two major issues of contention have been the NDFP’s
status of belligerency and its submitting to the GRP constitution. Many of the
specific issues raised—such as venue, implementing mechanisms, and definition
of responsibilities—have been due to the parties’ opposing stands on those
two major issues.
Yet
the talks have nonetheless still progressed and a landmark agreement on human
rights and international humanitarian law has been approved and signed.
The
recent affirmation of past agreements may at least provide a common framework
and guiding principles along which talks on the second substantive agenda of
social and economic reforms can proceed. This is crucial because every little
bit will help when it comes to negotiations on social and economic reforms.
Parts
of the CARHRIHL were hotly debated notwithstanding how it aimed to be universally
beneficial not only for combatants in the on-going war in the countryside but
for civilians everywhere.
The
Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms (CASER), on the other hand, aims to address the roots of poverty in the country and
lay the basis for a just and lasting peace. In doing so it runs against the
interests of powerful and entrenched economic and political elites and will thus
likely be far more contentious. #