Peace talks 101

The significance of peace talks resumption between the government and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), the revolutionary umbrella organization that includes the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People's Army (CPP-NPA ), is not as easy to appreciate and be enthused about as one would think. The subject matter is complex and its prolonged history full of twists and turns. Many times, optimistic rhetoric has given way to recrimination and impasses.

Many commonly raised questions in the public sphere are infused with cynicism that any kind of reasonable and realizable agreement can be reached by two diametrically opposed and warring parties. Yet as borne out by experience, common ground can indeed be found to move the talks forward and arrive at bilateral agreements beneficial to the people, and maybe even reach the point of truce and alliance between the GPH and the NDFP in the short to medium term, without either one surrendering to the other at the negotiating table.

But there must be a basic commitment to pursuing peace negotiations not just to still the guns of war but to address its underlying causes.

For those who view the resort to armed struggle to bring about societal change as unnecessary, believe that the long-running armed conflict merely exacerbates poverty and underdevelopment, and deem the overriding goal of the talks should be to get the CPP-NPA to lay down their arms and join the political "mainstream", peace talks can be a desirable and viable way to arrive at a political settlement in a conflict that has been going on for close to five decades.

For those who believe that armed revolution is necessary to overthrow an oppressive and exploitative system; that armed struggle is bringing an end to feudal relations in the countryside and empowering the rural folk through a form of shadow government; and who believe the ultimate way to a just and lasting peace is for the revolutionary forces and people to prevail over the defenders of the unjust status quo, peace talks remain a desirable and viable way for the two parties to negotiate an interim or a final political settlement, depending on the prevailing conditions.

People ask, "Are they negotiating in earnest? Do they really want to arrive at a political settlement?" The hardliners argue that by the very nature of the armed conflict, and especially the ideologies underlying each side, the peace talks are mere shadow play, utilized by either side for their own political ends, and thereby are doomed to fail .

Experienced peace advocates, on the other hand, have learned that "sincerity" is not at issue or shouldn't be. Given favorable conditions and circumstances, whatever the motivations of the leadership of the parties at any time, when they muster the political will to sit down and talk peace, this is a most welcome development deserving of everyone's support.

The important thing is that the framework -- the agenda and modalities or "terms of reference" -- allows and compels the two parties to forge a series of agreements that benefit the people in the short run and pave the way for a final peace agreement that addresses the roots of the armed conflict, leading to a just and lasting peace in the long run.

In the current GPH-NDFP peace negotiations, the 1992 Joint Hague Declaration effectively set this foundation for the peace talks. It has, within three years of the start of formal talks in 1995, resulted in the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) that would mitigate the impact of armed conflict on the people even as the more difficult socio-economic and political reforms that address the deeper roots of conflict are being negotiated. Unfortunately, little has been achieved on the substantive agenda since then.
 
The sad news is that in various degrees, successive GPH regimes, with plenty of encouragement and instigation from the US, took a hardline stance and attempted to circumvent, if not outrightly undermine, the framework agreement. The GPH could not and would not pursue peace talks unless the NDFP agreed to: 1) accept the GPH constitution and legal processes as framework for the talks; 2) abandon the armed struggle and enter into an immediate and indefinite ceasefire for the duration of the talks; and 3) conclude a "final peace agreement" sans any implementation of socio-economic and political-constitutional reforms that would demonstrate to the people and the revolutionary movement that the peace pacts were being upheld.

In short, the GPH was insisting on "surrender talks".

In the case of the outgoing Aquino regime, the militarists in the AFP and the OPAPP had convinced Mr. Aquino that the CPP-NPA and the rest of the NDFP are a spent force and that a fine-tuned counterinsurgency program cloaked with the mantra of "Daang Matuwid" could easily render them "politically irrelevant".

The Aquino peace panel, at the first and only formal talks held in Oslo in February 2011 went to the extent of declaring the Hague Joint Declaration a "document of perpetual division". Eventually, it said the GPH no longer wanted to talk about the social causes of the armed conflict, and insisted on starting from scratch, casting aside all previous agreements.

The good news is that under the incoming Duterte presidency, the designated GPH peace panel inked a joint statement in exploratory talks with the NDFP held June14-15 that resumes formal peace talks this July in Oslo, Norway in accordance with previously signed agreements.

The agreed upon agenda for the first round of formal talks with the Duterte government's peace panel is substantial including the accelerated process for negotiations; reconstitution of the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG); amnesty proclamation for the release of all detained political prisoners, subject to concurrence by Congress; and mode of interim ceasefire.

What could not be agreed upon in more than five years of the Aquino presidency were settled in a matter of two days! Nothing short of amazing.

The time for animosity, cynicism, rigidity, conventional and ultraconservative thinking is now past. As the man says, "Change is coming."

Published in Business World
20 June 2016

The Duterte presidency - interesting & challenging times

In a manner of speaking, incoming president Rodrigo Duterte, like the famous durian fruit of Mindanao, is an acquired taste. Many Filipinos, like most Davaoeños, take to him despite his foul mouth, crumpled shirt and old-fashioned machismo.  They swear by the man and rise to his defense on every occasion having known him as their no-nonsense, hardworking mayor who made their city safe and livable.

Those who are immediately turned off by the smell, look and taste of durian and decide that they can go through life without ever having to try one probably feel the same way about a politician like Duterte. Except he is no longer just a mayor of a city down south, he is now president by virtue of a phenomenal victory at the polls and will affect the nation’s life and future in the next six years (and conceivably for generations to come) whether we like it or not.

The Philippine Left, particularly the national democratic movement which includes such formations as BAYAN, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas, Gabriela and Anakbayan finds itself in unfamiliar territory.  Being used to the role of radical opposition to the series of elite, undemocratic governments subservient to the US, the movement is now facing an enigma.

Duterte is an avowed Leftist president who commits to resuming peace talks with the revolutionary forces of the National Democratic Front (NDF); promises to release hundreds of political prisoners; appoints Leftists in his cabinet; takes pro-poor, pro-people positions; and whose initial foreign policy pronouncements indicate greater independence from external dictates. At the same time Duterte will be committed, under oath, to preserving much of the status quo as the incoming chief executive officer of the government of the Republic of the Philippines.

Many well-meaning friends and sympathizers of the Philippine Left are asking how its leaders and members plan to deal with Duterte.  They are wondering whether the cabinet positions offered will mean the taming or silencing of the mass movement dedicated to arousing, organizing and mobilizing the people for fundamental socio-economic and political reforms.

They expect from the mass leaders of the Left strong reactions, even denuncitations, to statements by the incoming President, some of which appear to be policy statements while
others, just off-the-cuff comments, compounded by his penchant for hyperbole, satire and plain old ribbing.

The valid issues that have been raised include burial for the Marcos remains in Libingan ng mga Bayani; the spectre of extrajudicial killings in Duterte’s war against crime; protection of journalists from being killed in the line of duty including those who may be tainted with corruption; and cabinet appointees with dubious or unsavory backgrounds or conflict-of-interest baggage or known proponents of neoliberal economics.

There too are those who are anti-Duterte for one reason or the other, or anti-Left, or both, who would want to undermine any alliance between Duterte and the Left. They fear the kind of “change” or reforms that can emerge from such friendly, cooperative relations.  They include criminal syndicates, militarists, big business interests, land-owning elite, political dynasties and die-hard anti-communists.

The top guns of the outgoing Aquino III administration, the “kaklase, kamag-anak, kabarilan” (KKK) coterie and the various hangers-on who benefited from it are without a doubt just waiting for any misstep, hopefully a major blunder, that they can use to trigger Plan B (Duterte Out/Robredo In).   After having tried to redbait Duterte, they now try to bait the Left into joining the lynch mob against Duterte especially in light of his late night or early morning rambling press conferences where he has said or done some pretty outlandish if not outrageous things.

Historically, the US government has been intimately involved in the Philippine government’s counterinsurgency program against the communist-led movement.  The US has long instilled a rabid anti-communist orientation into the military and police forces by means of indoctrination and training programs it has provided to them.  It has also shown hostility to the GPH-NDFP peace negotiations not least of which is by placing the CPP-NPA and Professor Jose Maria Sison, CPP founding chairman and Chief Political Consultant to the NDFP peace panel, on its “terrorist” list, in order to demonize and isolate the revolutionary movement politically as an adjunct to crushing it militarily.

But more and more, to the consternation of the Right and the surprise and delight of the Left, Duterte is beginning to reveal himself as a maverick politician, an outsider, if you will, from the Manila-centric, hoity-toity political and social milieu.

His claim to being a Leftist or left-of-center is substantiated by his openness towards the revolutionary movement led by the CPP-NPA-NDFP not just in words but in deeds, not just as Davao City mayor but as incoming president of the entire country.

Duterte’s campaign promises about how he will prioritize health and education using savings from cutting down on government graft and corruption, inefficiencies and wastage are slowly taking shape in pre-inauguration policy statements. For landless farmers: land reform and priority given to agriculture. For the urban poor: no relocation, no demolition.  For workers: an end to contractualization and a return to a national minimum wage. For SSS members: a hike in retiree pensions.  Earnings of the state-run gaming corporation, PAGCOR, to go to the public health and education sectors. For government employees, specifically teachers, police and soldiers: decent salaries to keep body and soul together.

Duterte has stated he is against the wanton destruction of the environment through large-scale mining.  At first he offered the post of environment and natural resources secretary to a nominee of the CPP, perhaps in recognition of its conservationist and anti-large-scale mining stand, as well as its mass base among the many indigenous peoples living in mountainous areas.  But he withdrew the offer saying that he will transitionally head the DENR and mobilize the armed forces to help him impose restrictions against big corporations and others engaged in land grabbing and overexploitation of the national patrimony.

Emerging bits and pieces of the new government’s foreign policy indicate greater independence and adherence to national interests. There will be no kowtowing to the US.  There will be a firm but creative approach to dealing with territorial claims (such as in the West Philippine Sea and Sabah).

But the Left is keenly aware that Duterte is also a politician in the traditional mold.  His cabinet choices so far are dominated still by conservative, if not reactionary, bureaucrats both civilian and military, many left-over from previous fascist, puppet regimes.  Disturbingly, his economic compass has been left to the neoliberal mafia long entrenched in business and economic policy circles.

Thus the Philippine Left recognizes, welcomes and supports the progressive aspects of the incoming Duterte presidency yet vows to continue to take a principled, critical and even oppositional stand on policies and programs that go against the interests of the country and its people. Putting this into practice in the next six years of the Duterte administration will require steadfastness in principle, political astuteness, creativity and flexibility in tactics, skill in nuanced messaging, and the maturity and strength of its organized mass base.

The next six years promise to be interesting, exciting and challenging times. #

Published in Busieness World
7 June  2016

The Duterte presidency - interesting & challenging times

In a manner of speaking, incoming president Rodrigo Duterte, like the famous durian fruit of Mindanao, is an acquired taste. Many Filipinos, like most Davaoeños, take to him despite his foul mouth, crumpled shirt and old-fashioned machismo.  They swear by the man and rise to his defense on every occasion having known him as their no-nonsense, hardworking mayor who made their city safe and livable.

Those who are immediately turned off by the smell, look and taste of durian and decide that they can go through life without ever having to try one probably feel the same way about a politician like Duterte.  Except he is no longer just a mayor of a city down south, he is now president by virtue of a phenomenal victory at the polls and will affect the nation’s life and future in the next six years (and conceivably for generations to come) whether we like it or not.

The Philippine Left, particularly the national democratic movement which includes such formations as BAYAN, Kilusang Mayo Uno, Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas, Gabriela and Anakbayan finds itself in unfamiliar territory.  Being used to the role of radical opposition to the series of elite, undemocratic governments subservient to the US, the movement is now facing an enigma.

Duterte is an avowed Leftist president who commits to resuming peace talks with the revolutionary forces of the National Democratic Front (NDF); promises to release hundreds of political prisoners; appoints Leftists in his cabinet; takes pro-poor, pro-people positions; and whose initial foreign policy pronouncements indicate greater independence from external dictates. At the same time Duterte will be committed, under oath, to preserving much of the status quo as the incoming chief executive officer of the government of the Republic of the Philippines.

Many well-meaning friends and sympathizers of the Philippine Left are asking how its leaders and members plan to deal with Duterte.  They are wondering whether the cabinet positions offered will mean the taming or silencing of the mass movement dedicated to arousing, organizing and mobilizing the people for fundamental socio-economic and political reforms.

They expect from the mass leaders of the Left strong reactions, even denuncitations, to statements by the incoming President, some of which appear to be policy statements while
others, just off-the-cuff comments, compounded by his penchant for hyperbole, satire and plain old ribbing.

The valid issues that have been raised include burial for the Marcos remains in Libingan ng mga Bayani; the spectre of extrajudicial killings in Duterte’s war against crime; protection of journalists from being killed in the line of duty including those who may be tainted with corruption; and cabinet appointees with dubious or unsavory backgrounds or conflict-of-interest baggage or known proponents of neoliberal economics.

There too are those who are anti-Duterte for one reason or the other, or anti-Left, or both, who would want to undermine any alliance between Duterte and the Left.  They fear the kind of “change” or reforms that can emerge from such friendly, cooperative relations.  They include criminal syndicates, militarists, big business interests, land-owning elite, political dynasties and die-hard anti-communists.

The top guns of the outgoing Aquino III administration, the “kaklase, kamag-anak, kabarilan” (KKK) coterie and the various hangers-on who benefited from it are without a doubt just waiting for any misstep, hopefully a major blunder, that they can use to trigger Plan B (Duterte Out/Robredo In).   After having tried to redbait Duterte, they now try to bait the Left into joining the lynch mob against Duterte especially in light of his late night or early morning rambling press conferences where he has said or done some pretty outlandish if not outrageous things.

Historically, the US government has been intimately involved in the Philippine government’s counterinsurgency program against the communist-led movement.  The US has long instilled a rabid anti-communist orientation into the military and police forces by means of indoctrination and training programs it has provided to them.  It has also shown hostility to the GPH-NDFP peace negotiations not least of which is by placing the CPP-NPA and Professor Jose Maria Sison, CPP founding chairman and Chief Political Consultant to the NDFP peace panel, on its “terrorist” list, in order to demonize and isolate the revolutionary movement politically as an adjunct to crushing it militarily.

But more and more, to the consternation of the Right and the surprise and delight of the Left, Duterte is beginning to reveal himself as a maverick politician, an outsider, if you will, from the Manila-centric, hoity-toity political and social milieu.

His claim to being a Leftist or left-of-center is substantiated by his openness towards the revolutionary movement led by the CPP-NPA-NDFP not just in words but in deeds, not just as Davao City mayor but as incoming president of the entire country.

Duterte’s campaign promises about how he will prioritize health and education using savings from cutting down on government graft and corruption, inefficiencies and wastage are slowly taking shape in pre-inauguration policy statements. For landless farmers: land reform and priority given to agriculture. For the urban poor: no relocation, no demolition.  For workers: an end to contractualization and a return to a national minimum wage. For SSS members: a hike in retiree pensions.  Earnings of the state-run gaming corporation, PAGCOR, to go to the public health and education sectors. For government employees, specifically teachers, police and soldiers: decent salaries to keep body and soul together.

Duterte has stated he is against the wanton destruction of the environment through large-scale mining.  At first he offered the post of environment and natural resources secretary to a nominee of the CPP, perhaps in recognition of its conservationist and anti-large-scale mining stand, as well as its mass base among the many indigenous peoples living in mountainous areas.  But he withdrew the offer saying that he will transitionally head the DENR and mobilize the armed forces to help him impose restrictions against big corporations and others engaged in land grabbing and overexploitation of the national patrimony.

Emerging bits and pieces of the new government’s foreign policy indicate greater independence and adherence to national interests.  There will be no kowtowing to the US.  There will be a firm but creative approach to dealing with territorial claims (such as in the West Philippine Sea and Sabah).

But the Left is keenly aware that Duterte is also a politician in the traditional mold.  His cabinet choices so far are dominated still by conservative, if not reactionary, bureaucrats both civilian and military, many left-over from previous fascist, puppet regimes.  Disturbingly, his economic compass has been left to the neoliberal mafia long entrenched in business and economic policy circles.

Thus the Philippine Left recognizes, welcomes and supports the progressive aspects of the incoming Duterte presidency yet vows to continue to take a principled, critical and even oppositional stand on policies and programs that go against the interests of the country and its people. Putting this into practice in the next six years of the Duterte administration will require steadfastness in principle, political astuteness, creativity and flexibility in tactics, skill in nuanced messaging, and the maturity and strength of its organized mass base.

The next six years promise to be interesting, exciting and challenging times. #

Published in Business World
8 June 2016

Duterte and the Left

The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defense and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes. — Robert M. MacIver,The Web of Government (1947)

Rodrigo Duterte, longtime mayor of Mindanao’s premier city, Davao, will be the sixteenth president of the Republic of the Philippines upon his inauguration on 30 June 2016.  He is a conundrum to many people both to the left and right of the Philippine political spectrum.

For those on the Right who support him — who comprise the socio-economic elite, the dominant classes, the status quoers, the political conservatives and reactionaries — Duterte is what the ruling system needs to “fix” what is broken and in so doing maintain and strengthen it further.

During the campaign, they lapped up his diatribes against rampant criminality especially drug abuse.  They applauded when he railed against corruption in government.  They cheered when he denounced incompetence and the lack of political will to crack down on both.  They jeered with Duterte when he spat out the Aquino administration’s “Daang Matuwid” catchphrase.

For the Rightists who believe in Duterte, he is just what the system needs at this time. Not so much to bring about any substantive changes, but to act as the charismatic demagogue who can make the people believe that the system can still be fixed and that he is the one to do it.

Whether they are gleefully cheering Duterte on or warily accepting his ascent to the presidency despite his pedestrian language, controversial record and association with the Left, it is mainly because he appears to have succeeded more than any of the other presidential candidates in doing so.

For one, his law and order tagline, while neither new nor original, resonated with even the lower to middle income classes.  Those who live hardscrabble lives are much more vulnerable to being victimized by the anarchy, violence and rough-and-tumble of the mean streets of the country’s cities. The upper and elite classes who live in exclusive subdivisions, work and play in highly-secured environs and travel using tinted, air-conditioned luxury vehicles are relatively spared the aggravations of petty criminality and street-level lawlessnes.

The Leftists, more specifically the Makabayan bloc of progressives in Congress, officially supported Duterte’s closest rival, Senator Grace Poe, but saw many of its avowed constituency either gradually shifting to Duterte or, as was the case in Davao City and most of Mindanao, stubbornly backing Duterte from the very beginning.

It didn’t help that Poe’s campaign failed to energize Makabayan’s mass base and other staunch oppositionists to Aquino’s rule with its weak and halting critique of the outgoing administration.  Poe’s fairly progressive platform she shared with Makabayan was not highlighted during her campaign and did not quite make its mark in the public consciousness. Poe’s slogan “Puso at Galing” could not sustain its feel-good vibe as the campaign polemics heated up and rivals had to starkly differentiate themselves from the Aquino-backed candidate, Mar Roxas.

In the thick of his campaign, Duterte agreed to a high-profile role in the release of policemen held captive by the New People’s Army (NPA) or what the latter calls their prisoners-of-war. This was followed by his well-publicized Skype conversation with Prof. Jose Maria Sison, Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) founding chairman.

Duterte said he would immediately resume peace talks with the underground umbrella organization, the National Democratic Front of the Philippine (NDFP) representing the CPP, NPA and 16 other revolutionary organizations should he win.  He has even stated that he is open to entering into a “coalition” with them. He has also unabashedly described himself as a “Leftist” and “socialist”.

Upon his victory in the presidential race, he announced his willingness to set aside four Cabinet positions — labor, agrarian reform, social work and environment and natural resources — to be filled by nominees of the CPP.

These pronouncements taken together with his record of non-antagonistic and, even more so, friendly ties with the New People’s Army in Davao City, as well as support for the Leftist movement in general, underscore three aspects of Duterte that distinguish him from other run-of-the-mill bourgeois politicians.

First, he does not harbor a rabid, anti-communist bias having had exposure to revolutionary concepts and organzations since his youth.  He does not consider revolutionaries as terrorists nor traitors but as patriots who are seeking radical societal change for the good of the majority of the people.  While his views may not coincide completely with the communist-led movement, he recognizes that the objective conditions of social injustice and vast inequality are the fertile ground on which the entire national democratic movement thrives. He shows respect for the movement’s leaders; he acknowledges the CPP-NPA-NDFP as a significant force to contend with.

Second, because he acknowledges the deep socio-economic and political underpinnings of  armed conflicts he knows these cannot be resolved by military means alone. Thus he has publicly-announced his commitment to resume peace talks with the NDFP until a negotiated political settlement or, even much earlier, an agreement for immediate truce and cooperation is reached.

He has also repeatedly declared his intention to release all political prisoners, most specially the 18 NDFP consultants covered by the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) and the sick, women and elderly, for humanitarian reasons.

Third, Duterte has a strong, idiosyncratic character manifested in his refusal to kowtow to conventional ideas and norms about how a presidential aspirant or an elected president should behave towards the country’s former colonizer, the US of A; or how the presumptive president should relate to the pillars of the reactionary system — Congress, the Supreme Court and the judiciary, the civilian bureaucracy and the military, the hierarchical church foremost of which are the bishops of the Catholic Church, the big landlords and big business including multinationals and their local comprador partners and dummies.

More than a month away from his inauguration as President of the Republic, Mayor Duterte has stepped up the momentum for change during the transition with statements and decisions no one had expected or predicted.  The difficulty in anticipating these lie partly in their being apparently inconsistent or contradictory and irreconciliable, such as continuing the neoliberal economic policies of the Aquino government while offering socio-economic cabinet posts to the communists. But these could also be seen as bold, if unorthodox, yet carefully calibrated measures towards his vision of a reformed “socialist” society while maintaining the tenuous equilibrium between the status quo and reform.

Mayor Duterte has displayed exceptional brinksmanship in proving that an avowed Leftist and Socialist can win and wield the Presidency while reassuring the Right that he will keep his oath to preserve the system. So far, these are positive signs of how well, how fast and how far he will and can go towards instituting genuine change with the Left behind and alongside his Presidency. #

Published in Business World
24 May 2016