Paolo Mapula

Thesis Statement:

Norway will not succeed as the facilitator of the Peace Talks between the Government of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front (NDF), because both parties are not showing the willingness to pursue the talks, and even the sincerity of both is still questionable.

ANALYSIS                

To make a prognostic study on such an unresolved and still very much controversial issue is hard, really hard indeed. Not only does it test one’s analytic skills, it also tests one’s resourcefulness in getting the information that is needed. Though obstacles such as lack of much literature regarding the study, and financial resources often set-in during the course of our study; we, the group V of the PS 180 class, strived to deliver a credible, unbiased, and academic point of view regarding the issue. The study may not yet be very much conclusive, it is important to point out that the issue is still beyond definite certainty, and, thus, is still open to any educated opinion the reader may personally have.

Besides literary sources, such as books, magazines, newspaper articles, and Internet websites, our study was based on the three interviews that the group conducted with representatives from both parties and Norway, the facilitator country. For the NDF, we have Professor Villegas, a consultant of the NDF panel, while on the GRP we have Presidential Adviser on Peace, and incumbent Chairman of the GRP panel Silvestre Bello, and lastly we have first secretary for the Royal Norwegian Embassy, Trine Joranli. These three interviews have been the source of the most important and most substantial part of the study, by clarifying questions that were otherwise unanswered, ignored, and set-aside by the local media, they have given the group a rich source of information.

However, informative as the interviews may be, it is also as confusing. Although this confusion played a very big factor in our formulation of our conclusion, and it is, indeed, revealing. Confusions as to what is Norway’s role in the peace process were encountered on both parties, proving that there are certain inconsistencies and misunderstandings that haunt and plague the whole peace talks. The NDF views Norway’s role as that of a third party adjudicator and arbiter which also has the kind altruism of offering support to the financially challenged NDF panel, nevertheless they still view Norway as a biased facilitator, and has leanings toward supporting the GRP panel.[1] The GRP, on the other hand, sees Norway’s role not as a biased adjudicator, justifying this claim by citing the example of Norway reprimanding both parties during the walkout of the GRP panel in the middle of the talks; they see Norway merely as a venue where there are, according to Silvestre Bello, “sceneries”, this is, as he relayed, the main reason why Norway is the host of the peace talks.[2]

Nonetheless, both agreed on one thing: that Norway is a peace-loving country conducive and supportive of such peacekeeping activities. Although both parties claim that they were responsible for the choosing of Norway as the venue, and thus adding more confusion. It only underscores the fact that Norway is a better place to conduct the peace talks, and it is basically because of these reasons:

1.                  It is generally famous for its facilitation of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace accord, and it’s role in the Sri-lankan peace agreement with the Tamil Tigers.

2.                  It is outside the country, thus it is more secure for the NDF to conduct the peace talks.

3.                  It is willing to finance the NDF panel and that it does not, supposedly, adhere much to the US threat regarding its war on terrorism and the label of terrorists on the CPP-NPA-NDF.

4.                  It is away from the local media, which may jeopardize the peace talks by creating an atmosphere not conducive to independent negotiations.

5.                  And lastly, it is outside the country, thus the AFP can exert less influence, though not entirely, in the outcome of the talks.[3]

While Trine Joranli of the Norwegian embassy clarified to the researchers that their role is really that of an unbiased, non-participatory, even charitable institution/host/facilitator (the interviewee too is confused about the labeling) with the primary responsibility of encouraging, not directly influencing, the talks to continue and, hopefully, in the end, prosper. She emphasized that Norway is neither connected in any way, nor intervening in the outcome of the talks[4]. 

Moreover, the confusions and discrepancies don’t stop there, even to the very reasons why they opted to hold the negotiations in Norway don’t jive with each other. Both claiming that the choice was their own initiative, both claiming that the Norwegian government invited them, while the Norwegian embassy clarifying that they did not invite anybody, rather, it was the request of the GRP and that they only allowed for the use of their good offices not really as so called facilitators but just as a venue (However, she clarified that if both parties agree to elevate the role of Norway in the talks, the Norwegian government will take up the responsibility)[5]. This confusion roots to the problem that there is no real effective communication between the two parties. Both NDF and GRP share the blame in the nonsuccess of the said peace talks.

Even they themselves admitted that there is a crippling insincerity from both panels to pursue and continue an effective peace talk. Each blaming the other side for the stall in the peace talks; the researchers believe that it is because of the following reasons:

1.                  There is no effective, binding, and cooperative implementation of the already signed CARHRIHL or Comprehensive Agreement on the Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law. This breeds distrust in the peace process, especially now that there are calls to recall the said first agreement, instead, replace it with an agreement that will be an aggregate of all four previous planned agreements, one of which is CARHRIH. It is designed to be swift in negotiation, and involves only one signing of an agreement. This is to credit GMA for forging a peace accord with the left and may further her name for her possible running in the next presidential elections.

2.                  There is the undeniable intervention from the Armed Forces; both admitted claims of being influenced by the Military. Thus, there is no real independence in the negotiation of the peace talks.

3.                  The culture of violence still exists on both parties, which they justify by saying that though there is an on-going peace talks, there is still war in the countryside. The congratulatory remark of the NDF to the NPA assassination of Cagayan Representative Rodolfo Aguinaldo, was a foul act in a process that is supposed to be condemning such atrocities. Thus, there is an obliteration of the agreement that both parties will endeavor to maintain good will, confidence building and good climate for the peace talks.[6]

4.                  The “all-out” war policy of GMA is a big hindrance to the success of the peace talks. This is mainly an influence of the US foreign policy of war against terrorism, which the administration adopted in order to be parallel with that of the US. Thus, the US factor plays a very big role in the outcome of the peace talks.

5.                  There is basically, unwillingness by both parties to initiate and resume the talks, instead, dwelling on issues such as status of belligerency, without actually trying to solve the problems that are the root of insurgencies. Although, both claim that they are actively pursuing to continue the talks, the clamor is not loud enough.

Norway’s role in the peace negotiations is not really that substantial and is very limited. They don’t possess any influencing power. So, why is Norway giving the time of day to help and support the success of the peace talks? The group believes that it is due to three main reasons:

1.                  Norway is trying to build this image in the international community as a peace-loving country in order to have the prestige that might even compare to the status of Switzerland.

2.                  The diplomatic ties between the Philippines and Norway has very much improved, and now, as Silvestre Bello put it, “ngayon once or twice-a-week na kami nag-la-lunch o dinner ng ambassador ng Norway, libre pa niya![7]” not only did it give free lunches to the Presidential Adviser on Peace, but it also opened up doors so that both countries might know each other’s culture, which is the main advantage of Norway as Ms. Joranli asserted.[8]

3.                  Lastly, the Norwegians have economic interests in the Philippines; they currently have businesses ranging from exports of Paper pulp, to electronics, and even Fish “Would you believe that?[9]” (Norwegian Salmon), not only these, there is their shipping lines where most of our OFW seamen are employed. By hosting the peace talks they are protecting their economic interests, through economic diplomacy, and political presence in the Philippines.

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS TO THE PROBLEM

“What is important to remember in Oslo Peace negotiations is that we can’t act if there is no willingness between the different parties…

It’s always a matter of the parties wanting us [Norway] there. We always act upon request”

-Trine Joranli

during the interview

Many say that the problem is how to find a solution, however, from how our group sees it, the solution is in the problem. As we have already discussed earlier, the role of Norway in the Peace talks is not that substantial and is very limited, thus its influence over the success of the peace talks is very negligible. So how are we going to get through this? How can we end the conflicts, and the insurgencies? How can we address the root problems?

From these questions, we enumerated only three possible solutions to the problem:

1. ALL OUT WAR

            Although this option is not really a good solution to the problem, in fact the group discourages, even condemns, this course of action since it will only plant further the seeds of enmity and hate. However, if in the occasion that there is no real progress in the pursuance of peace and equal prosperity and security in the country, this solution is the easiest, yet barbaric solution to the problem. Actually undertaken by both sides of the coin but as history proved, they were unsuccessful. It only led to bloodshed and senseless human rights violations. Prof. Villegas once told us “gusto ko na gerahin e, pero sabi nila Luis Jalandoni, pare wag muna…maganda na raw na subukan lahat ng option[10]” Group’s evaluation: it is unadvisable.

2. PURSUANCE OF PEACE TALKS

            This is the solution being taken recently by both NDF and the GRP, however at present there is a conflict on the sincerity of both sides towards the success of the peace talks. Even the first agreement on the respect for human rights is being violated and not even implemented seriously. There is no genuine sincerity by the parties, especially in the government side. Even Norway noticed that their sincerity is but half-hearted, to the point that Norway had to reprimand both sides. So what are the peace talks for? Maybe just for confidence building measures of the government? To help aid the ambition of Fidel V. Ramos, back then, to be a Nobel Peace prize laureate? One thing is for sure; the peace talks have taken long enough time. As Garcia puts it, “these processes have taken considerable time”[11]. The peace talks confront several obstacles and it is more than a decade since the talks started. Unfortunately, for the time being this is the most feasible solution that both parties can provide. Group’s evaluation: Feasible, we hope it’s success will be achieved soon, so we implore both parties to resume the negotiations

3. A FOCUS ON RADICAL SOCIO-ECONOMIC REFORMS

            By the word “radical” here, the group did not mean a drastic shift from a capitalist economy to a communist/socialist economy; what the group meant was an introspect on the root causes of the problems and then after recognizing them, they are to be addressed, solved. Then in the long run if the people are satisfied then there will be no need for an armed conflict. For example as Silvestre Bello said, genuine implementation of a genuine land reform is just what the people needs. Not only Silvestre Bello, but also all three interviewees recognized that the focus on the socio-economic needs of the people is the best way to stop an armed struggle. In this way the solution will be found in the problem. The Researchers believe that this is the best solution to the problem. It is effective and beneficial than the other two options in more than one way:

1.      It doesn’t need violence to be successful

2.      It ensures the success of socio-economic reforms

3.      It involves active participation of both the government and the people

4.      It is less costly since it doesn’t need to send a panel to other countries for talks.

5.      The benefits go directly to the people, in effect it is more directly felt by the people

6.      It is a long run solution, meaning its benefits lasts for a very long time.

By this analysis, the group evaluated that this is the best if not the only solution to this longstanding problem of war in the countryside. Through this, the group is sure that the conflict will eventually die out, the flame of hate and violence will be reduced to embers. By this time bloodshed will no longer be needed.