Oslo Talks: Inching Toward
Peace
The resumption of peace talks between the National Democratic Front of the Philippines and the Philippine government in Norway has produced results. These include a commitment to implement past agreements, the start of the forging of another agreement (this time on social and economic reforms), and confidence-building measures. But there's still a long way to go.
By SANDRA NICOLAS
Auspiciously, it was the end of winter and the start of spring. Still, few among the delegations from the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) in Norway last April 27-30 could have been used to the seven-degree centigrade temperature and the perpetually gray and overcast skies. They met in a 19th century hotel on a hillside, just outside Oslo, with a breathtaking view of the Norwegian capital city and the fjord it sits on. After two years of cold silence, the NDFP and the GRP were talking again.
The restarted peace process had begun with much enthusiasm. Three weeks earlier, the New People’s Army (NPA) released the last of its prisoners of war on the island province of Mindoro. Then there was the Church-sponsored “Solidarity Conference for Peace” in Manila attended by over a thousand people including high NDFP and GRP officials, members of people’s organizations and nongovernment organizations, and other peace advocates. By the time the talks resumed, the GRP had released 50 political prisoners.
Implementing the CARHRIHL
Then came the formal opening of talks in Oslo, where it was hoped that the momentum would be maintained. The hosting by the Norwegian government adds to the two European Parliament resolutions (1997 and 1999) in terms of international support for the peace process. Both panels were received by the highest officials of the Norwegian foreign ministry and the delegations were given official luncheons and receptions.
There were achievements, certainly, but they were perhaps not the “breakthroughs” some in the Philippine press have labeled these to be. So far, it seems that the firmest points have been that the talks have successfully resumed and that the validity and binding character of the 10 bilateral agreements signed by the NDFP and the GRP from September 1, 1992 to August 7, 1998, have been affirmed by the parties’ respective principals.
Take the painstakingly crafted Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL). The most that was attained regarding it is the parties’ expressed determination to implement it, as the Joint Communiqué of April 30 qualified, “as far as practicable to promote the peace negotiations.”
The GRP panel was reluctant to implement the setting up of the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) as envisioned and provided for in the CARHRIHL, insisting that it be only for fact-finding rather than for investigation leading to prosecution and trial. Relatedly, they also had reservations about two of the CARHRIHL’s articles on the investigation, prosecution and trial of violators of human rights and international humanitarian law.
In the interest of pushing for the CAHRIHL’s implementation, the NDFP panel agreed in principle to the GRP’s proposal on the JMC, although the exact formulation is still to be worked out by both sides. They also agreed to find a solution regarding the two articles objected to by the GRP.
All the rest of the CARHRIHL is supposed to be implemented. Correspondingly, the NDFP has called for the speedy release of political prisoners, repeal of repressive decrees and the return of internal refugees to their homes and land.
The panels will be taking up the implementation of the CARHRIHL when talks continue in Oslo on June 9.
Social and Economic Reforms
The two sides exchanged drafts of the proposed Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms (CASER). The first meeting of the reciprocal working committees (RWC) on social and economic reforms opened with a burst of spontaneous applause, for they were finally taking place, but the working sessions discussed mainly procedural matters of work methods and schedules.
Each delegation is composed of the Negotiating Panel, the RWC for the substantive agenda at hand, and its subcommittees. The GRP panel wanted to have the next meeting of the RWC-SER in Manila, to which the NDFP disagreed. The GRP panel then proposed that at least one meeting of the RWC-SER be in Manila, which has not yet been resolved.
In any case, it was agreed that the RWC-SERs will meet in Oslo on June 9 to take up at least the preamble and declaration of principles of the CASER.
It was also agreed that subcommittee meetings of the RWC-SER could be held in Manila; these may include public hearings and sometimes even joint public hearings. No schedules have been proposed yet. The subcommittees are composed of experts and resource persons and are not necessarily members of either the NDFP or the GRP.
Building Confidence
The NDFP put forward various sectoral calls that the GRP could respond to as confidence-building measures. As NDFP chief negotiator and National Executive Committee member Luis Jalandoni explains, “responding to these sectoral demands is very important so that the various sectors, which played a crucial role in the victory of People Power II, would see that their demands and calls are being taken up seriously in the peace talks.”
These demands include wage increases and a stop to contractualization, halting landgrabbing and retaking of land from peasants, ceasing displacement of fisherfolk by eco-tourism, respect of ancestral lands, and a halt to urban-poor demolitions.
The GRP panel received the concrete proposals. Those more open to them suggested that they be classified into three: immediately implementable (doable); implementable within a short period; and long-term.
The NDFP was invited to present specific cases of affected peasants and fisherfolk, for referral to the appropriate line agency, with progress on what has been done checked at the next round of talks. There was also discussion of how the needed legislation for the wage increases could be taken up in the next Congress.
Best Efforts
Both sides have expressed determination to move the talks forward despite initial disagreements. Jalandoni said, “We still face a lot of difficult issues because there are wide-ranging and deep-going differences on the two sides.” Chief GRP negotiator Silvestre Bello III agreed but also said that progress “is definitely being made.”
While both parties have said that they will aim to complete the talks in eighteen months, few expect this to happen. The three remaining items on the agenda are agreements on social and economic reforms, political and constitutional reforms, and the end of hostilities and disposition of forces.
All these involve tough issues made even more difficult by, as an NDFP consultant puts it, the two parties’ “diametrically opposed views.”
It took six years for an agreement to be forged on the first item on the agenda, human rights and international humanitarian law. As it is, six months have been allotted for each remaining item on the agenda.
SIDEBAR
RELATED ARTICLES
Government Disunited as GRP-NDFP Peace Talks to Resume
Interview
with NDFP Chief Negotiator Luis Jalandoni
Talking Peace in a Time of War