Roana Namuag

BACKGROUND:

            Since 1969, the Communist Party of the Philippines, its military arm the New People’s Army and its political wing the National Democratic Front have fought the National government for political control and land reform. The NPA’s armed struggle against military forces, police and civilian militias resulted in heavy casualties during the 1980s. Failed 1986 peace talks with the NDF were not revived until the government’s 1992 National Unification Commission established an amnesty and negotiation process. In 1998, a month after newly elected President Joseph Estrada signed an August human rights accord with communist rebels, the government postponed planned talks. In spite of renewed efforts in 1999 and 2001, the peace process remains stalled.

               Representative Satur Ocampo gave a historical overview of the peace negotiations, tackling the differences between the GRP and the NDF that have bogged down since they began in 1986. The former NDF spokesperson and negotiator spoke of the “diametrically opposing stances” of the two sides, which explains the interruptions, the debates and breakdowns in the peace talks.  He explained that in the government’s view, a negotiated political settlement could only mean that the NDF would yield to its sovereignty, and an agreement on the cessation of the hostilities must precede the implementation of reforms addressing the root causes of the armed conflict. On the other hand, the NDF upholds the integrity of the revolutionary forces it represents claiming equality to the GRP. The NDF also insists that an agreement and initial implementation of fundamental reforms must precede the cessation of the hostilities1. Hence, up to this time, the peace talks have move on these differences in the interpretation and appreciation of the framework kept on surfacing every now and then, which tended to stop, abort, or suspend the peace negotiations. 

STATUS OF THE PEACETALK: The Oslo Peace Process

            After a series of talks in Netherlands, the GRP and the NDf peace panel had moved the next round of talks in Norway. Norway would only served as a host for the peace talks, which means they only provide venues, food, and hotel accommodation for the delegates. It does not join nor intervene in the talks. They don’t have the right to give any recommendation for the peace talk. According to Chairman Silvestre Bello, head of the GRP peace panel, Norway was a mutual choice between the party. He asserts that Norway has a conducive environment and it is known in advocating world peace order. It was also believe that it has the credibility to facilitate such peace process because of its well-known experience in Sri Lanka, Middle East and Nordic Countries.2 

            Last April 27, 2001, the Philippine government and rebels met for peace talks in Oslo, Norway. The talks began on a positive note with both sides hoping for peace within 18 months. The talks have tackled the implementation of the first of the four-part substantive agenda of the negotiations, the Comprehensive Agreement On respect on Human Rights and in International Humanitarian Law or CARHRHL, which was signed in 1998 but was not implemented by deposed President Estrada. Aside from that they are looking forward for the implementation of the Joint Monitoring Committee, which would hundle human rights complain and to preempt ant side from using such complains to unilaterally recess and collapse the negotiation.  They also discussed the second agenda item, the Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms, which believes to be the heart of communist insurgency. The consultation participants agreed on two major points: first, that both the GRP and the NDF must return immediately in the negotiating table; and second, that the GRP’s draft on socio-economic reforms is inferior to that of the NDF in terms of substance, details and concrete actions of reforms called for by the different sectors.3  

            However this was halted abruptly last June 2001 because of the assassination of Cagayan Representative Rodolfo Aguinaldo. The Philippine government contends that they don’t condemn the assassination of Congressman Aguinaldo but rather condemns the move of the NDF to release a congratulatory statement on the said actions of the NPA. For the government, NDF had obliterated the mutual agreement that both parties will endeavor to maintain good will, confidence building and providing the peace talk a good climate.  4 But on the NDF side, Prof. Ed Villegas, NDF consultant, assert that the assassination was done on a right cause because Aguinaldo was one of the human rights violator in the country. And what they have done is only to defend and give justice to his victims. 5

            At present, the peace talk is still in precarious situation since close on the heels of neutralizing the Abu Sayaff, the Macapagal administration has announced an escalation of the “all-out” war on communist guerillas. The AFP is now shifting its forces in Mindanao and other parts of the country where NPA activity has been reported to be on the rise. The government decided to escalate the war as part of the battle on terrorism. The President Arroyo labels all armed rebellions as a terrorist, without differentiating as to whether they were driven by pure banditry or ideology. In the meantime, the US government had placed the NPA under the broad category of terrorist organizations, although there’s absolutely no link between the communist rebels and the Al-Queda terrorist network.6 According to the AFP, the NPA’s expansion and activities have reached an alarming level. Since, every week there was a report on rebels’ insurgency such as political assassinations, economic sabotage, and illegal taxation on business enterprise, it is then unlikely that the GRP could not go back to the negotiating table7. Hence, the government was in a dilemma whether to continue the peace talk or to follow its anti-terrorist policy.

            On the other side, the NDF contends that different contingent issue blocked the continuity of the peace talks. According to Jose Maria Sison, NDFP Chief Political Consultant, the escalation of state terrorism impedes the peace talk. Thus, it is one of the violations of the GRP-NDFP Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law. The military, police, and paramilitary forces of the GRP are committing the most vicious human rights violations on a wide scale under the Macapagal policy of waging an all-out-war against the people and their revolutionary forces.    Aside from that, the Arroyo Administration insists on the line of pursuing “back channeling” until its pipe dream of NDFP capitulation is fulfilled. It is then violating the Hague Joint Declaration and other GRP-NDFP agreements that must guide the peace negotiations. Philippine government has also collaborated with the US in persecuting and threatening the negotiators, consultants and staffers of the NDFP abroad. It has openly endorsed the designation of the CPP-NPA as “terrorist” organizations by the US, in violation of the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG). Hence, the NDF can not negotiate with the GRP while the Macapagal administration is allowing the US forces to trample upon the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Philippines. The regime is collaborating with the US in its scheme of escalating military intervention and building infrastructure for the reestablishment of the US military bases against the Filipinos and neighboring countries in Asia. 8  

            Although the NDF and the Philippine government could not meet in a common ground, which would entails the collapse of the peace talk, still both parties are open to negotiate for peace in the near future.

            On the other hand, the Norwegian government was still welcome in facilitating the peace talks on a ground that both parties should be sincere in dealing with the peace talk. According to the First Secretary of the Norwegian Embassy, Trine Jaronli, Norway is still looking forward to settle the conflicts between the NDF and GRP. Hence, if Norway would be a mediator in the up coming peace talk, it would then urged both parties to meet on a common ground with the help of its NGO networks. She also denied that Norway has an advantageous effect in facilitating peace talks. Hence, they intend their policy as neutral and peace loving country.9  The success of the peace talk would boast the integrity and credibility of Norway and at the same time it would strengthen its diplomatic ties with the Philippines.

ANALYSIS:

Norway as a Facilitator?

            In the course of the interview with both parties, it is quite noticeable that they used the word facilitator and mediator interchangeably. But still they define the role of the Norway in a common ground. Norway only serves as a host in the GRP-NDF peace process, which serves the venue, food and hotel accommodation of the panelists. Norway was chosen because of the belief that it effectively handles and facilitates peace process like the case in Sri Lanka, Guatemala, Palestinian issue and Nordic countries. Hence, Norwegian government boasts that its country was a peace loving and independent minded country.

However, it is quite questionable that from that peace process has come up into a successful end of the conflict. Since up to now, insurgencies and conflicts still arise in those countries. Aside from that the implementation of the agreements by both conflicting were stagnant. Hence, there are no concrete terms to end the conflict.

Moreover, it is untrue that Norway was not benefiting from any peace process that it handles most especially in the Philippines.  A closer look reveals that internationally Norway’s welfare development is primarily in its rich energy resource, which it acquired a long tradition as a self-sufficient producer of energy. Since then, Norwegians as well as foreign oil companies have spent large sums in prospecting, drilling, production and transportation of oil and natural gas. Hence Norway is now a world’s second largest oil exporter. Norway also plays a leading role in international maritime research on ship design and hydrodynamics, shipbuilding and operations.10 In its diplomatic relation, Norway maintains it closer ties with the US government. Both were fundamental partners for international security and collective defense.  US tend to support peacekeeping operations and the Oslo peace process sponsored by Norway in the different countries.11

Economically, both countries maintain its strong bilateral relationship in terms of oil. Approximately seven per cent of Norway's exports travel across the Atlantic to the United States, making the United States the single most important market for Norway outside of Europe. The United States is the largest foreign investor in Norway. Approximately 25 per cent of foreign direct investment into Norway come from U.S. companies, mainly in the petroleum sector. The United States is the most important market for Norwegian maritime transport companies. Forty per cent of the Norwegian-controlled tonnage calls on ports in the United States. These ships carry American exports to foreign markets.12

Philippines is one of the strategic investment areas for Norway. Both maintain its economic bilateral relationship, since main exports from Norway to the Philippines are telecommunication equipment, fish, chemicals, electronics, pulp and paper while exports from the Philippines to Norway traditionally have been electronics, agricultural products, garments and handicraft. Norway maintains 36 Norwegian companies in the Philippines and most of the companies were joint ventures from the US. Initially, most of the companies are shipping, oil and fish exports.13

Predominantly, one of the main agenda for Norway to facilitate peace processes is to protect its market against internal conflict such as communist insurgency. They perceived that continuous armed struggle would destabilize the economy and affect their investment. In the press statement done by King Harald V of Norway, stated that peace processes done by Norway are strongly supported by the US in order to protect their economic interests 14. Aside from the fact that they wanted to boost their country as a “International Peace Builder, ” Norway was also taking up its lead in order to protect its own capital market by managing to reap from a favorable international environment.

Difficulties in Attaining a Peace Negotiation:

            It was said that before conflicting parties would attain unification, it has to build first a peaceful coexistence. Peaceful coexistence is only the means to an end. Peaceful negotiation could be attainable if both have their trust, confidence and sincerity from one another.

            It could be analyzed that the GRP and the NDF lacks the sincerity to pursue the peace process. Both have continuously violated the agreements that they have signed. They are not able to arrived in a common ground and be able to fulfill the good will and conducive environment for the talks.

            Aside from personality and ideological conflict, both parties were challenged by many contentious events that are happening in and out of the country. One of the contingent facts was that the Philippine Government is not functioning as an independent party. Since the peace talk began during the Aquino Administration, the military influence over the process has been dominant.15  When the government declared recess in the peace negotiations following the assassination of Aguinaldo, the military saw an opportunity to impose conditions for the continuation of the talks. Some of these conditions include a moratorium on “political execution” by the NPA and the operationalization of a strategic plan towards the disbandment of the NPA.  Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes once said that the NDF is using the peace talk in order to gain a status of belligerency.16

            Actually, the status of belligerency of the NDF-CPP-NPA is already an earned status. According to the article of Raul C. Pancalangan and Elizabeth H. Aguiling entitled The Privilege Status of the National Liberation Movements under International Law, the status of belligerency could be satisfied by four conditions. First, the existence of the armed conflict must be general in character, which means it has a wide array of command. Second, there’s an occupation by the insurgents of a substantial portion of the national territory. Third, there is an internal organization capable to enforce the laws of war. And fourth, there are circumstances by which it makes necessary for outside states to define their attitudes by means of recognition of belligerency.17 Given this condition it could be proven that the NDF-CPP-NPA already have a status of belligerency. However, this was denied and even unrecognized by the Philippine government most especially the military because, it would able the NDF to explicitly exercise its legal rights and obligations as an international personality. Thus the conflict would be subject as an international in character.

            Aside from this fact, the contention of Chairman Bello that the GRP is independent and exercise non-intervention with regards to this peace talk is definitely wrong. The time when Pres. Bush declared an all out war on terrorism, the Philippine government and the military openly supported the campaigned. The US government had a law, which is the Anti-Terrorism and Death Penalty Act of 1996, which has the capacity to designate an organization as a terrorist organization. It was speculated that before US labeled CPP-NPA as a terrorist organization, President Arroyo together with its military officials had come up in a tacit agreement with US government in order to include the CPP-NPA as a terrorist.  Part of the condition according to Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes, was the nearly half of the 55 million dollars that the US is giving in an anti-terrorist package will be used in the fight against communist insurgency.18  Thus, 25 million would be used to put up, train, and equip elite Light Reaction Companies (LRCs) to fight the NPA. Report says that officials consider the NPA an even more serious threat to national security than the Abu Sayaff. This action from the government is a clear collaborative strategy by the Philippine military and the US forces to advance a purely militaristic standpoint against the communist. It would then inflict a problem to continue the peace talks.

            Besides, that is one of the major barrier to pursue the peace talk since, the Arroyo administration has not learned the lessons from the past administrations regarding the use of war as a tool to addressed the armed conflict. The continued support by the US to the Philippine military force entails the indirect intervention by the US, which tends to affect the peace process. Moreover, when US decided to freeze the account of the NDF, it had worsen the situation because it had pushed the intensification of the civil war by both parties. According to the NDF, the action done by the US is apparently a preparation of a psywar in order to do away with the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations and for rationalizing the US military intervention against the revolutionary forces and people.19  If the government would continue to be influence by the indirect US intervention and the dominant military structure then it would likely lead to the termination of the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations.

            Furthermore, another difficulty in resuming the peace talk is the proposal of Pres. Arroyo to draft a single comprehensive agreement in exchange for the four level peace process. According to the NDF, this is a violation to the agreed set up during the Ramos Administration. According to the government peace panel, they are rushing to complete the proposed “final peace agreement” in order to exacerbate the present conflict.20

However, the proposed action for reforms in the GRP graft is sweeping generalizations without concrete plans of actions on how to implement them. The GRP draft’s “national agenda for growth”, which espouses the opening of the economy by dismantling monopolies and cartels and leveling the playing field of enterprise, thus according to the NDF are motherhood statements clearly echoing the neo-liberal economic doctrine. On the issue of land reform, while the government recognize the comprehensive agrarian reform and rural development as the key for achieving social justice, the GRP’s draft only reaffirms its intentions to continue the implementation of the current agrarian reform programs through intensified land distributions but still qualified by terms like “consistent with national priorities, and applicable laws of the land and just compensation.” Hence, the GRP draft is too general, lacking in details and without concrete solutions with regards to the environment and socio-economic status of the Filipinos. It would also be appropriate if the government would work out the agreements with the cooperation of the NDF in order to come up in a consensus agreement with regards to the root cause of the armed conflict.

Hence, if the government would sincerely addressed the genuine land reform and the implementation of the agreements done by both parties without the any intervention from US or military then it would somehow convince the NDF to go back in the negotiating table and pursue the peace negotiation. And besides the rebel group is only looking for a right time and cause in order to unite with the government, since it was believe that communist leaders are not getting younger and that the idea of communism would be irrelevant in the present setting.

CONCLUSION:

            Peace negotiation and unification of the conflicting party does not come from vacuum. It needs persistent communication, confidence, sincerity and independence on both parties. Given the scenario, even if Norway would be a facilitor- mediator in the peace process, I believe that the peace talk would not succeed. It is because Norway was not really an effective channel for peace building. Norway only used the peace process in order to boost its reputation in the international arena and at the same time protects their market in abroad.

                 And besides, both the NDF and the Philippine government were not sincere in pursuing the peace process. It is because the Arroyo administration is under the influence of the military and the US government. The labeling of the CPP-NPA as a terrorist had put the peace process in a precarious situation. First, because it is now a big challenge for the Norwegian government to continue facilitating the peace talks since one of the parties is a terrorist. However, this case would also blow up the reputation of the Norway as a neutral and peace loving state if ever it would be pressured by US to stop the peace negotiations. Moreover, it could be assumed that Norway would continue the peace talk with a tacit agreement with the US in their bilateral economic ties. I guess the US and Norway had come up a strategic step regarding the peace talk.

             However, on the other side, Philippine government was also pressured by two dilemmas, one, is to escalate the war against the communist and the other one it to pursue the pending peace process. The Arroyo government could not decide on its own terms because of the presence of the dominant military structure and the explicit submission of the government on Bush war on terrorism. In the course of the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations, it is observed that Pres. Arroyo does not act as the political leader and commander-in-chief of Reyes. She has acted more like a subordinate. It has been known a number of times when she gave her go signal to the GRP negotiating panel but Reyes reversed her decision. So long as, Pres. Arroyo is afraid to assert her office and exercise her political will over Defense Secretary Reyes, then Reyes will always be able to paralyze the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations and give full rein mania for all-out war and his pipe dream of annihilating or forcing the capitulation of the revolutionary forces and the people.

            Aside from that, US influence over the Arroyo administration is also dominant. The idea of declaring an all out war and the redeployment of military contingents from the Moro areas would escalate the suppression. Although the ruling cliques believes that it can gain politically in a big way by posing a strong and whipping up policy of repression, the NDFP was not at all intimidated to withdraw their struggle. NDFP still intends to give a direction to its armed wing to increase their tactical offensive.

            This scenario would then entail to impede the resumption of the peace talks. As long as both parties continue to impose impossible conditions to resume the talks, then the negotiation would be stalled. The government and the NDF must then exert an effort to come up a peaceful coexistence before the negotiation would start.