MANILA, Philippines - Malacañang policy-planners, lawmakers, judges, LGUs, the bureaucracy, businesspeople, the MILF, NDF/NPA, Christians, Muslims, Lumads, and, equally important, ordinary Filipinos must see themselves as peacemakers in our beloved homeland.
No right-thinking Filipino would want protracted conflict, or war of any kind, to descend anywhere in the Philippines. Ask any family head, housewife, wage-earner, teacher, soldier, policeman, OFW, student, veteran, and former rebel whether they want enduring peace or continuing violence.
Their answers will be the same: All want enduring peace so we can move forward and enjoy the benefits of sustained development as in other countries.
There is no necessity for expensive, nationwide opinion surveys to poll this question; neither for over-hyped, “know-it-all” broadcasters who foment sabung (cockfights) so they could climb higher in media ratings.
Enduring peace: our best legacy
What is essential for elected incumbents is to sustain the peace process – thru doable confidence-building measures to unify our communities in Luz-Vi-Min.
Enough gains have been made in the past 20 years for us to anticipate that the GRPh-MILF and GRPh-NDF peace agreements remain well within reach – if only dedicated political will is applied upon unresolved issues. Ultimately, it is the GRPh down to the barangays, under the supervision of President Aquino III, that bears the responsibility to insure that enduring peace and sustainable development are the final outcome.
This is our inescapable duty: the ball is and will always be in the GRPh court. P-Noy’s lasting legacy to us could be the successful closure of these two derailed peace processes.
The GRPh-NDF Negotiations
The GRPh-NDF peace negotiations almost reached final settlement at the end of FVR’s term by 30 June, 1998.
The following landmarks achieved from September, 1992, to April, 1998, represent significant progress towards final peace:
(1) The Hague Joint Declaration (01 Sep 1992), recommending confidence-building measures and substantive topics including human rights and international humanitarian law, socio-economic-political reforms, and disposition of forces (co-signed by GRPh Jose V. Yap and NDF Luis G. Jalandoni).
(2) The Breukelen Joint Statement (14 Jun 1994), adopting safety and immunity guarantees for negotiators, consultants, and security personnel (co-signed by GRPh Howard Q. Dee and Jalandoni).
Safety and immunity guarantees
(3) Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (24 Feb 1995), adopting guarantees for free discussions and movements, and averting untoward incidents (co-signed by Dee and Jalandoni).
(4) Joint Agreement for Formal Meetings (26 Feb 1995) respecting Governing Principles, Documentation, and Media Coverage (co-signed by Dee and Jalandoni).
(5) Joint Agreement on Formation of Reciprocal Working Committees (26 Jun 1995), concerning HR/IHL Issues, Socio-Economic-Political Reforms, and Disposition-of-Forces (co-signed by Dee and Jalandoni).
(6) Additional Rules on Identification Documents (26 Jun 1996, co-signed by Dee and Jalandoni).
(7) Supplemental Joint RWC Agreement (18 Mar 1997, co-signed by Dee and Jalandoni).
Human rights/international humanitarian law
(8) Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for HR/IHL (16 Mar 1998), to protect and promote HR/IHL (co-signed by Dee and Jalandoni).
(9) Additional JASIG Rules (16 Mar 1998, co-signed by Dee and Jalandoni).
(10) Joint Agreement on Private Support for Socio-Economic Projects (16 Mar 1998), encouraging private institutions to promote empowerment of communities, families, and individuals (co-signed by Dee and Jalandoni).
Breakthroughs in March-April, 1998
The last three agreements are the most substantive components. The greatest tension – costing much time and goodwill – happened over HR/IHL discussions, per records.
The consolidation of above agreements as peace building blocks were formalized in the “Solidarity Conference for a Just and Lasting Peace” at the Philippine Plaza Hotel on 18 April 2001. In previous meetings in the Netherlands, it was agreed to use a Philippine (instead of European) venue.
It was also agreed that the “Solidarity Conference” would be jointly hosted by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines, National Council of Churches in the Philippines, and civil society organizations.
For the first time after many years of negotiations abroad, the GRPh and NDF met together in the Philippines.
Solidarity in the Philippines
As an added bonus, several NDF leaders who had been away on self-exile for several years agreed to come to the Philippines.
To show goodwill, Honorary NDF Chair Tony Zumel and wife Ruth de Leon came home after 12 years in the Netherlands. Previously, FVR had received negotiator Fidel Agcaoili in Malacañang.
At the April 2001 “Solidarity Conference,” then Vice President Teofisto Guingona and FVR were invited to share insights and experience with both panels. Credits go to GRPh Chairman Silvestre Bello III and Panel Member Hernani Braganza, then DAR Secretary, for updates. At that juncture, there were indeed high hopes for settlement of the protracted, bloody communist insurgency.
With such bold moves, optimism arose. The excruciating steps were finally bearing fruit towards peace.
Other positives
During the early Arroyo Administration, several positive developments supporting the “Solidarity Conference” happened:
(1) 06 Mar 2001 - First batch of 10 political prisoners freed by PGMA.
(2) 06 Apr 2001 - Release at Mansalay, Mindoro Oriental, of Army Major Noel Buan (NPA captive for 21 months), with help from Sen. Loren Legarda and the Philippine Red Cross.
(3) 16 Apr 2001 - Surprise visit of Chief Negotiator Jalandoni to ISAFP to ask for the release of Leoncio Pitao (aka Kumander Parago).
(4) 27 Apr 2001 - Resumption of formal GRPh-NDF talks in Oslo, Norway.
“Off to A Good Start,” headlined the Philippine Free Press (05 May 2001), “PGMA enters her 100th day, treading hopefully, though cautiously, the path of peace.”
Unfortunately, the record also shows that during the entirety of the Estrada Administration, there was little or no progress in the peace talks.
The Philippine Free Press (21 April 2001) reported: “The talks were last held during the Ramos Administration, which completed the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL). But the talks were suspended when successor Estrada refused to acknowledge the Agreement.”
Both sides, however, seemed upbeat on the prospects of the Oslo talks (27-30 April 2001). Chairman Luis Jalandoni was quoted by the Philippine Free Press (12 May 2001): “The toppling of former President Estrada helped lead to talks. Jalandoni never gave up hope on a negotiated settlement to the armed conflict.”
In addition to the CARHRIHL, the two panels agreed to tackle the Comprehensive Agreement on Socio-Economic Reforms (CASER) and complete four substantives within 18 months, including amendments to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and rights of the urban poor.
Oslo talks suspended
The second round of the Oslo Talks (10-14 June 2001) though going on smoothly was abruptly suspended – and justifiably so – by GRPh Chairman Bello with the killing of Cagayan Congressman (former Governor) Rodolfo Aguinaldo on 12 June by suspected NPA elements.
Nevertheless, “back-channelling” continued. In effect, only the formal talks (not the negotiations themselves) were suspended. To its credit, the Norwegian Government kept the lines of dialogue open.
In the ensuing period (characterized by postponements amid charges of alleged HR and extra-judicial violations by one side against the other), there remained windows of opportunity.
The NDF appeared still willing to resume negotiations as indicated by Atty. Edre B. Olalia, NDF Legal Consultant (11 October 2007): “The NDF considers peace negotiations to be ongoing. What is suspended are formal meetings of their panels. The NDF also affirms that all agreements already signed with the GRPh remain binding and effective. The Joint Monitoring Committee established in February 2004 as mandated by the CARHRIHL of March 1998, continues to function.”
The foregoing was confirmed in the “Joint Statement of Senator M.A. Madrigal and the NDF Panel” (12 October 2007, Amsterdam): “Chairperson Jalandoni welcomed Senator Madrigal and considers that the GRPh-NDF negotiations as ongoing inasmuch as neither the NDF nor GRPh terminated the JASIG. The NDF is ever willing to resume formal talks within the framework of The Hague Joint Declaration (1992). The agreements already made remain valid and binding. The GRPh, NDF and the Norwegian Government (as facilitator) clearly consider the CARHRIHL as valid and binding.”
Since mid-2006, however, the Arroyo Administration embarked on “all-out war” against the NPA.
GMA’s all-out war
Recall these headlines:
* “GMA Orders Reds Crushed in 2 Years” – P1B to AFP; PNP kicks off all-out war vs. NPA (Philippine Daily Inquirer, 17 June 2006)
* “Run NPAs to the Ground” – Security forces have marching orders (The Philippine Star, 23 June 2006)
In our Bulletin column “Is PGMA Unfair to the AFP-PNP?” (02 July 2006), we observed: “Clearly justified are relentless police-military offensives against the NPA and other private armed groups including the Abu Sayyaf and MILF lost commands. Combat operations, however, constitute just one component of the holistic strategy to achieve durable peace and public safety. ‘All-out force’ obscures the government’s real objective: ‘PEACE AND DEVELOPMENT’.”
Therein, FVR underlined the need for “Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation” – as the organic link between peace and development. Even with more AFP-PNP resources, this objective must be pursued without diminution. Our 1997 landmark R.A. 8425 (Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act) seeks to emancipate people from the root causes of poverty and injustice which lead to insurgency and rebellion.
The socio-economic dimension is precisely the missing link in the GRPh-NDF negotiations as articulated by Congressman Satur Ocampo, himself a former NDF negotiator. The Philippine Daily Inquirer (25 April 2001) quoting Ocampo, noted that still lacking were comprehensive socio-economic reforms to enable PGMA to comply with her commitments.
Ocampo suggested that the Government adopt a total approach as outlined by the National Unification Commission chaired by Atty. Haydee Yorac (1993) which addressed the roots of conflict, particularly poverty and social injustice.
What should P-Noy do?
Clearly, Malacañang should now play the end-game (with foreseeably good chances of success) by regrouping Government assets together with those of the private sector, and the totality thereof holistically brought to bear upon the problems of disadvantaged Filipinos.
P-Noy needs to mobilize our elected officials to become committed to peace and development. No less than the effective combination of coherent (a) civilian socio-economic/political, (b) AFP defense/security, and (c) PNP law enforcement/public safety efforts and resources will lead to enduring peace with the NDF/NPA and MILF.
Please send any comments to fvr@rpdev.org. Copies of articles are available at www.rpdev.org.
Retrieved from www.mb.com.ph"
