Understandably, an atmosphere of optimism pervades the nation this week over an agreement reached by the Philippine government and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) to return to peace negotiations, possibly to begin in the first quarter of 2024.
A joint statement, signed on Nov. 23 between the two parties in Oslo, Norway, was made public on Tuesday. Signing for the GRP was Antonio Ernesto Lagdameo, special assistant to the President, and Luis Jalandoni for the NDFP. The statement cited a meeting of minds on the following:
• Cognizance of all serious socioeconomic and environmental issues and the foreign security threats facing the country and the need to unite as a nation to urgently address these challenges and resolve the reasons for the armed conflict;
• Principled and peaceful resolution of the armed conflict, resolving its roots and ending it “shall pave the way for the transformation of the CPP-NPA-NDFP;”
• Agreeing on the framework that sets the priority for the peace negotiations with the aim of achieving the relevant socioeconomic and political reforms towards a just and lasting peace; and
• Such framework setting the parameters for the final peace agreement shall be agreed upon by both parties.
The joint statement was the culmination of an initiative by retired AFP chief Gen. Emmanuel Bautista, who visited the NDFP office in Utrecht, the Netherlands, in early 2022, and returned a number of times. According to Jalandoni, Bautista was “positively welcomed and highly appreciated” by the late Jose Ma. Sison, NDFP chief political consultant, who passed away in late December 2022.
In his closing speech at the signing of the joint statement in Oslo, Jalandoni lauded Bautista’s “sincere efforts” to push for continuation of the GRP-NDFP peace process. “We worked together with his team in the course of almost two years to achieve what we have today,” he disclosed.
Bautista will probably continue to work (on the government side) to help smoothen the path for resolving the impediments to the peace process – before and during the formal negotiations.
Because it was the previous administration that mainly created the impediments, the NDFP side expects the GRP to take responsibility and signal its sincerity by clearing the path towards successful negotiations to resolve the problems cited in the joint resolution.
In Oslo, Jalandoni candidly stated:
“There are some immediate practical concerns and issues that need to be addressed. It will be important that our NDFP consultants who are detained [15 of them] can have free and unhindered participation in the peace negotiations.”
“Equally important,” Jalandoni added, “is the question of the designation [by the Anti-Terrorism Council under the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2020] of the NDFP as a ‘terrorist organization’.” He emphasized that such designation “militates against seriously working for a just and lasting peace with unwavering commitment for the benefit of the people.”
“Having said these,” Jalandoni diplomatically concluded, “we look earnestly with guarded optimism but new impetus that our bilateral candid discussions and openness to continuing dialogue and negotiations ahead of us will eventually lead to a just and lasting peace for the Filipino people. Let us build on the goodwill that we have engendered so far towards this goal.”
Seconding Jalandoni’s stance, Julieta de Lima, interim chairperson of the NDFP negotiating panel, said during an online press conference last Tuesday:
“The role of the NDFP consultants in forging agreements cannot be over-emphasized. Hence, we will continue to work for their release to enable them to contribute their knowledge and expertise to the peace negotiations.”
She urged the government to create conditions necessary to attain peace – by taking effective measures to abrogate the terrorist designation of the NDFP and ensure the safety and immunity from harassment, arrest and detention of those involved in the peace negotiations. She urged the government to issue a “general, unconditional and omnibus release of all political detainees.”
In that NDFP press conference, Jalandoni promised to do the following:
• Ensure the bilateral nature of the negotiations, reaffirm binding previous agreements and negotiate on a framework of principles that will be acceptable to both parties;
• Earnestly pursue the substantive agenda that will provide concrete benefits to the people, “keeping in mind always that the roots of the armed conflict must be resolved” and
• Work for the removal of impediments that are incompatible with the aims of the peace negotiations “in good faith.”
Addressing reporters on Tuesday, presidential peace adviser Carlito Galvez Jr. said a final peace agreement with the NDFP is “very achievable” within Marcos Jr.’s term. “The President is very positive,” he pointed out. “Based on our briefing, the perspective is good. Even the other party, they are very confident and cordial. We had a good experience in Oslo.”
However, Galvez sought to define the agreed-on peace negotiation cited in the joint statement differently from the NDFP’s take: A “resumption” of the GRP-NDFP peace talks carried out under previous administrations, until Rodrigo Duterte arbitrarily terminated them on Nov. 23, 2021. The truth is that Galvez, along with retired Gen. Hermogenes Esperon, spurred Duterte’s termination of the peace negotiations by vehemently attacking and rejecting the drafts of comprehensive agreements on socioeconomic reforms that had already been produced by the two panels.
The Philippine STAR reported Galvez as saying that the government and the NDFP are starting a new peace negotiation, not resuming the one that Duterte stopped. “Resumption is different. When you say resumption, it was interrupted. Here, we will start anew.” In another newspaper, he was quoted as saying, “When you say ‘resumption,’ it means something was cut [which was what happened six years ago]. This one, we will start anew.” The presidential peace adviser needs to explain more.
Then there’s a statement from Marcos Jr.’s national security adviser, Eduardo Año, who reportedly refuses the suggestion to withdraw the terrorist designation of the NDFP, until after a final peace agreement has been signed. That sounds like a potential stumbling block.