Natuional Democratic Front of the Philippines peace consultant Tirso “Ka Bart”Alcantara reads his poem “Pangako ng Kalayaan” at the Laya event held at Bamboo Intramuros, Manila on December 3, 2016.
The event was organized by the people’s rights alliance Karapatan to call for the release of all political prisoners.
By Carol P. Araullo, Independent Cooperator to the NDFP Negotiating Panel
Response to “Contra en punto” written by Edwin G. Espejo, in reaction to my 17 October 2016 Business World column “Streetwise – Thorny issues emerge in Oslo peace talks”
IT IS UNFORTUNATE that Mr. Edwin G. Espejo, a member of the GRP Peace Panel Communications Group, chose to write a riposte to my opinion piece by selecting certain parts which he rebuts rather than crafting a piece to give his or the GRP’s take on the second round of GRP-NDFP peace talks held last October 6 to 9.
Mr. Espejo may have an exaggerated estimate of the reach and influence of my column such that he had to write his attempt at a “contra en punto”. Since Rappler has given Mr. Espejo the space to ventilate his views specifically geared to counter and debunk my column, I am compelled to respond.
I wish to put on record why I write about the peace talks and what guidelines I follow to keep my commentaries fair, that these do not run counter to the written agreements, and are contributory to the goal of reaching a just and lasting peace.
I am acutely aware of the need to give due respect to the prerogatives of the respective peace panels and the need for a media embargo on what transpires while each round of talks are ongoing. In fact, whatever I write during the actual talks is generally on positive developments or merely to describe the atmosphere without going into detail on contentious points. (The title of my column published 10 October, a day after the close of the formal round of talks, is “Second round of peace talks on track”.)
It is another matter once the round of talks is concluded. I strive to give my readers, especially those who are not able to observe and participate directly in the peace talks, an insight into how the talks are proceeding. It stands to reason that I will include points of contention. It would be a disservice to keep painting a rosy picture when the differences between the two Parties become more sharply delineated as the talks proceed to the substantive agenda.
I am a nationalist and democrat, a political and social activist, an unabashed Leftist. I have never hidden the fact that my politics are aligned with those of the NDFP.
Having said that, I am also an advocate of a just and lasting peace and of giving the venue of peace negotiations a chance to resolve the roots of armed conflict. I see no inherent conflict between the two.
I have thus been a critic of the completely obstructionist and reactionary viewpoint of the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process under Sec. Teresita Deles and the GRP Peace Panel under Atty. Alex Padilla during the Aquino III administration. On the other hand, I have welcomed and supported the Duterte administration’s bold initiatives in resuming the formal peace talks with the NDFP as well as with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Moro National Liberation Movement.
Mr. Espejo accuses me of impropriety for allegedly “hurl(ing) some serious issues and criticisms against the government panel…(a)nd in the same breadth (sic) heap(ing) all praises to the NDFP.” I urge the reader to take the time to read my entire opinion piece Thorny issues emerge in Oslo Peace Talks and judge for herself if the accusation has any basis. I contend that the article is objective and fair without pretending to be neutral.
Mr. Espejo appears to be defensive about my observation that “(o)n top of contrasting if not diametrically opposed points of view, was the seeming lackadaisical preparation of the GRP RWC-SER.”
This observation however is based on fact that is verifiable. As I wrote, the GRP RWC-SER “did not even have an honest-to-goodness draft outline comparable to the fleshed-out one submitted by the NDFP”.
Mr Espejo’s attempt to explain away this glaring contrast between the two Parties’ preparedness to negotiate on major socio-economic reforms is quite lame. He advances the theory that “the GRP panel are there to receive proposed reform agenda from the group that is challenging its authority.” He concludes illogically that the GRP panel is “not duty bound to present its own…”
He quickly acknowledges however that “the agreement during the first round of talks in August is that both parties are going to agree on the outline and framework of discussions on social and economic reforms”. What he conveniently omits is that several weeks before the second round of talks, the agreement was that there would be an exchange of each side’s respective draft outline and framework. Up until the second round of talks, the GRP RWC-SER had a half page listing of topics while the NDFP submitted a 16-page draft framework and outline.
Mr. Espejo notes, “The sheer number of NDFP delegation (rounding up to 60) in the Oslo 2nd round, more than a handful of them released on bail upon the insistence of the government, is more than just gestures of goodwill and manifestation of sincerity.”
Let me just inform the reader that those individuals in the NDFP delegation numbering about 60 vs the GRP’s 50 were mainly consultants and resource persons for the NDFP RWC-SER who had been working the week before to finalize and fine tune what the NDFP would present at the 2nd round. They had also been working on overdrive to finish the NDFP 3rd draft Comprehensive Agreement on SER, giving it more flesh, updating and fine tuning it from the 1998, 2001 and 2004 drafts all of which where made available to the GRP panel and to the public even as the talks had been embroiled in numerous impasses.
Also for the record, the release of the 18 NDFP consultants was a result of hard work by the two sides, the NDFP invoking the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) and the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) that the Duterte-appointed GRP Peace Panel accepted as valid and binding. The herculean efforts of the NDFP consultants’ lawyers, human rights advocates and an entire slew of supporters here and abroad who kept up the pressure for their release in the name of justice and the peace talks were key. The NDFP consultants were not, as Mr. Espejo simplistically puts it, “released on bail upon the insistence of the government.”
Mr. Espejo questions my writing an analysis of the ongoing GRP-NDFP peace talks since I am part of the NDFP delegation. Again let me be clear that the NDFP delegation includes resource persons such as myself and many consultants who are not necessarily organic to the NDFP.
As far as I know, the NDFP (and for that matter, the GRP) has not imposed a gag rule on any and all members of the NDFP delegation. It is up to the individual to exercise responsibility, fairness, objectivity and restraint as is warranted to keep the peace talks going on a productive track. The text of the bilateral statements and agreements are an objective basis for testing the veracity of any analyses or opinion pieces that anyone may choose to write.
I assume that Mr. Espejo, who is part of the GRP “communications group”, is not writing for himself alone but in behalf of his bosses. In fact he keeps making reference to “minutes” of the peace negotiations citing them as basis for his “contra en punto”. In this respect, Mr. Espejo appears to have quite an advantage in being able to cite purported official minutes. He again conveniently omits that he is citing GRP minutes and interpreting them to bolster his arguments that are presumably being made to “communicate” the GRP views and propaganda line.
Lastly, I call the attention of readers to two news reports that show even while the talks were ongoing (in fact, as early as Oct 8) both the GRP and NDFP panels had issued statements to the media regarding the progress and lack of it with regard to CASER, amnesty and ceasefire. It also appears that it was the GRP who first made public its criticism of or displeasure at the NDFP’s position vis-a-vis said agenda items. <PH-NDF talks hit snags, camps committed> and <Govt-NDFP agree on framework for socio-economic reform>
Thus news reports, mostly citing GRP and NDFP panel members and consultants had already mentioned and described in detail what I later wrote about in my column. Mr. Espejo now vehemently protests, as though I am the first to divulge and comment on what transpired in the second round of talks.
Why did Mr. Espejo, and for that matter OPAPP, not protest these earlier statements and news reports? Could it be because it was the GRP who “drew first blood” so to speak, and that the NDFP was merely issuing rejoinders to clarify?
I seriously urge Mr. Espejo to write a separate opinion article where he will have full leeway to expound on the GRP positions as befits his job description. #
THE National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) Negotiating Panel said the respective unilateral ceasefire declarations by the revolutionary group and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) are holding despite reports of violations by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Philippine National Police (PNP).
In a press release, NDFP Negotiating Panel chairperson Fidel Agcaoili said the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the National Operational Command of the New People’s Army’s (NPA) August 28 2016 Unilateral Declaration of Interim Ceasefire with the GRP remains valid.
Agcaoili was responding to an October 20 letter from GRP Negotiating Panel chairperson Silvestre Bello III proposing that both the NDFP and the GRP “simultaneously declare their renewed commitment to their respective unilateral indefinite ceasefire.”
Bello made the proposal in light of the parties’ failure to meet the October 26 deadline for them to work out a bilateral ceasefire agreement in accordance with their October 9 Oslo Joint Statement.
“The Parties renewed their commitment to work through their respective ceasefire committees to reconcile and develop their separate unilateral ceasefire orders into a single unified bilateral document within 60 days from August 26, 2016,” the parties’ second round of formal peace talks statement said.
Agcaoili said he informed Bello that there is no need for a new declaration as the CPP and NPA’s unilateral ceasefire declaration remains valid during the course of the peace negotiations or until a notice of termination takes effect 10 days after receipt of notice by the GRP Negotiating Panel from the NDFP Negotiating Panel.
Ceasefire violations
In its press release, the NDFP also said there are persistent reports from regional NPA commands of GRP violations of its own ceasefire, such as incursions into NPA territory in the guise of civic action and anti-drug operations.
Human rights group Karapatan for its part said the AFP is using the Rodrigo Duterte government’s so-called war against drugs as a cover in implementing its Oplan Bayanihan counter-insurgency operations against leftists.
Karapatan suspects GRP troops are responsible for the killing of youth activist and environment defender Joselito Pasaporte in Compostela Province last October 13, who the PNP said was included in its drug watch list.
Karapatan also said the war on drugs was the cover in the arrest of eight farmer-activists in San Jose Del Monte, Bulacan last October 6.
“While the United States-driven Oplan Bayanihan remains operational, any form of people’s assertion of their rights will always be subject to repression. The ‘war against drugs’ is now being used as a convenient excuse by the PNP and the Armed Forces of the Philippines to undertake illegal arrests against citizens,” Karapatan Secretary General Cristina Palabay said.
Earlier, the NDFP said it suspects PNP elements are out to sabotage the peace process after the brutal police dispersal of an indigenous peoples-led rally at the United States (US) Embassy in Manila last October 18.
Agcaoili said it is most likely there are elements within the military and police who are against the new policy direction of their commander-in-chief, President Rodrigo Duterte, to pursue peace with the NDFP.
The Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP) also expressed shock at the violent dispersal, calling the police action “pure insanity.”
OPAPP added that it hopes the incident will not prevent the pursuit of achieving elusive peace in the country.
Violations may force NPA to retract
In a public forum last October 26, however, newly-appointed NDFP Negotiating Panel member Benito Tiamzon warned that continuing violations by the GRP would force the NPA to retract its unilateral ceasefire declaration.
“If the situation gets worse, it would be better to pursue the talks without ceasefire,” Tiamzon told dispersal victims last October 26.
“If the AFP continues to violate the ceasefire, it will not be long and it is highly probable that the NPA would retract its unilateral ceasefire,” he said.
Tiamzon recalled that, in the past, the peace talks continued even without a ceasefire.
More stable ceasefire possible
In his reply to Bello, Agcaoili reminded his counterpart of GRP’s commitments on the releases and amnesty of political prisoners in accordance with their June 15, August 26 and October 9 joint statements.
The NDFP Negotiating Panel has also recalled on several instances that it was Duterte who repeatedly volunteered issuing a general amnesty proclamation for political prisoners.
“Fulfillment of such commitment would serve as a big incentive towards accelerating the peace negotiations and forging a mutual stable ceasefire,” the NDFP said.
In their latest joint statement, the parties said they are exerting their best efforts to develop a single and unified document of a bilateral ceasefire agreement within a desired period.
There has been no GRP-NDFP bilateral ceasefire agreement since 1987. # (Raymund B. Villanueva)
In this video, NDFP chief political consultant Jose Maria Sison explains that the peace talks must achieve substantial benefits for the Filipino people before a permanent ceasefire may be discussed.
OSLO, Norway–The Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) promised to deliver on its commitment to release political prisoners after four days of intense negotiations with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) which ended today. Read more
Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan) Secretary-General Renato Reyes cites two important achievements in the first 100 days of Pres. Rodrigo Duterte’s administration — asserting Philippine sovereignty against US domination and resuming peace talks to address the roots of the armed conflict.
Reyes however added that Duterte’s anti-drug campaign needs socio-economic reforms and not killings. Read more
In this video, government chief peace negotiator Silvestre Bello III answers questions on the status of the formal peace negotiations between the GRP and the NDFP on its third day. Read more
OSLO, Norway–The second round of formal talks between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines will finish a day earlier with the approval of outlines of at least two of the three remaining substantive agenda in the peace negotiations. Read more
The parties determined they have the political will to continue with the peace negotiations, maganda lalo na on the side of the GRP. They have a president who said he is a left president. We appreciate the release of theJASIG-protected consultants. But I also pointed out that a big incentive to accelerate the peace process ay iyong promise to amnesty and release of all political prisoners. It was a promise that originated from President Duterte in his conversations with Fidel Agcaoili. So, I said, the amnesty and release of all political prisoners would be a good incentive for the signing of a joint or bilateral ceasefire agreement that is more stable than this ceasefire through unilateral declaration—which happen to be holding, huh. It will also be a strong incentive for the accelerated peace talks on socio-economic and political and constitutional reforms. Read more
Oslo, Norway–Negotiations on social and economic reforms (SER) as well as amnesty for political prisoners faced delays prompting the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) to conclude their second day of negotiations early.
The parties’ reciprocal working committees for SER adjourned by midday after failing to unify their differing draft outlines while earlier GRP-NDFP panel discussions also failed to agree on the conduct of release of more than 400 political prisoners. Read more