Government Disunited as GRP-NDFP Peace Talks to Resume

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.

By SANDRA NICOLAS

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.  #