THE armed conflict involving the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the New People’s Army (NPA) is on its 47th year. That means a generation of Filipinos, particularly those in rural and mountainous areas, has grown up knowing the violence of war and its effects. But even longer is the history and more harmful the evil consequences of the causes of this conflict, which the 30-year peace process between the Government of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) is endeavoring to address.
Thus the resumption of the GPH-NDFP peace talks and the July 25 announcement by President Rody Duterte of a unilateral ceasefire with the CPP-NPA-NDF should be regarded long overdue, and much welcomed developments.
The withdrawal just five days later of the unilateral ceasefire, after an incident involving paramilitary troops and the NPA, and the non-issuance of a reciprocal measure by the other party, was an understandable cause of consternation for those who have been advocating for progress in the GPH-NDFP process after the five-year impasse with the previous administration.
Despite strong words from both camps as results of the July 27 incident and the withdrawal, it is encouraging that the talks in Oslo in mid-August will continue. It is important that citizens not lose hope for the resolution of the nearly half a century of conflict this early in the Duterte administration.
Part of that lies in the pragmatic understanding that while unfortunate, the calling off of the ceasefire need not be tantamount to another stalling of the peace talks.
While an early cessation of hostilities is without doubt more preferable, there are problems to making an indefinite ceasefire a precondition for the continuation of the process, particularly since the revolutionary forces have long articulated their reservations: that a ceasefire without the resolution of substantive issues would be tantamount to surrender, and that is not the spirit in which they want to be at the peace table.
My own hope is that enough traction and agreements in the talks would inspire adequate confidence and commitment on both sides so that a joint ceasefire would be declared even in the middle of the substantive discussions, and not only at the end.
The July 2016 report of a mapping activity of peace constituency actors in the Philippines by Joeven Reyes and published by the Norwegian Peacebuilding Resource Centre (Noref) indicated that “only a few CSOs focus directly on supporting peace and peace processes”.
This was ascribed largely to the difficulties of Filipinos, majority of whom are preoccupied with daily survival and family-community concerns, to “immediately associate or see the link between their present issues and concerns and the peace process“, and inadequate information about the peace processes.
While the above conclusions warrant further discussion, there can be no disputing the need to broaden interest and stakeholdership in the GPH-NDFP peace process simply because the roots of the conflict, and the war and its consequences do not just concern and affect the two parties but the entire Philippine society.
The changes embodied in the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), Comprehensive Agreement on Socio-Economic Reforms (Caser) and the Political and Constitutional Reforms (PCR)—the substantive agenda that have to be resolved before the discussion on End of Hostilities and Disposition of Forces (EoH and DoF) as set out by the Hague Joint Declaration in 1992—will have repercussions on all Filipinos, and not just on government and the CPP-NPA-NDF.
Moreover, the non-resolution of this agenda, or its conclusion but in a manner that does not involve all Filipinos runs the risk of recurrence, or even of breeding new and more violent conflicts in the future.
Both parties have claimed to have the interest of Filipinos at heart, and thus feel justified in standing for them in the negotiations. But there can be no replacing the direct voices and views of groups, peoples and communities—the legitimate concerns and aspirations of women, men, youth and children—when it comes to discussing the future that we want to achieve as we move away from a violent and harmful past and present.
At the June 8, Ateneo de Davao Pakighinabi/Conversations, NDFP Negotiating Panel spokesperson Fidel Agcaoili alluded to difficult experiences with civil society and peace movements in earlier days.
While such concerns need to be looked into by the panels and civil society and peace movements, the consequences of narrow support is more problematic. That the July 30 withdrawal of the ceasefire by government did not elicit as much reaction from online communities that are quick to comment on national concerns was telling. It can also be recalled that in 2002 then head of government President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo claimed that 95 percent of Filipinos were against the resumption of the GPH-NDFP peace talks, which was later used as justification for her administration’s tepid efforts at pursuing the negotiations.
Peacebuilding to be successful requires vision. In 1992, both Philippine Government and the NDFP articulated that vision in the Joint Hague Declaration: that the common goal of the negotiations shall be the attainment of a just and lasting peace.
That vision was part of the July 25 Sona of President Duterte, “we will strive to have a permanent and lasting peace before my term ends. That is my goal, that is my dream.”
We hope that unlike the previous five administrations, this administration would be unrelenting in making the vision a reality.
There is every reason for civil society, peace networks, business, citizens and even international partners to be interested in and supportive of the GPH-NDFP peace process.
Save for when the talks started in 1986, at no other period in the past 30 years has there been more optimal conditions for the negotiations not only to continue but more importantly to achieve a peaceful and just conclusion.
Now is a very favorable time, and this is a window we cannot afford to squander. Because the alternative would be unacceptable: continuing inequities and injustices, and an armed conflict and its consequences that would be inherited by the next generation.
Email feedback to magszmaglana@gmail.com