The NDFP-GPH Peace Process

The NDFP-GPH Peace Process

By Alicia Kuin
Q.Med, LL.M. (ADR), M.A., B.A.

The peace negotiations, which began in August of 1992, have aimed to address the root causes of the forty-year long protracted conflict between revolutionary forces and the Philippine Government.

The revolutionary movement comprises of the NDF and their allied organizations, the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the CPP’s armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA).

The focus of the peace negotiations has been the following reforms: Social and Economic Reforms, Political Reforms, and an end to Hostilities and the Disarmament of Forces.

Following 9/11 and the borderless war on terror, the negotiations entered into a new phase of talks: talks characterized by longstanding strategic stalemates sustained by the newly employed label of ‘terrorists’.

As a result of the NDF refusing to sign a two-page peace accord capitulating to the demands of the GPH, the American Office of Foreign Assets Control listed Sison, the CPP, and the NPA as persons/organizations supporting terrorism in August 2002.

Since 9/11, there has remained a clear link between the revolutionary movement and the GPH, the relationship between the GPH and the U.S., and the war on terror and the terrorist listings. This has consequently led to an increase in the length of stalemates and amount of back channeling that has taken place during the negotiation process.

Since the terrorist listings, human rights violations in relation to the peace process have seen an increase and there are three main areas that I want to cover: violations in relation to the pre-9/11 agreements; violations in relation to political prisoners, and; violations in relation to children.

According to Sison, the GPH’s support for America’s war on terror was the first sign of the government disregarding their obligation to two of the negotiation’s most important pre-9/11 agreements: the Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG), and the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL).

The NDF argues that by supporting the U.S.’s labeling of Sison, the CPP, and NPA as terrorists, the GPH violated the JASIG, which aims to advert any event that could potentially endanger the negotiations.

The NDF further argues that CARHRIHL has been violated as a result of the Philippine and American government’s denial that the armed conflict in the Philippines is governed by international humanitarian law.

According an NDF panel member Coni Ledesma, the importance of the GPH abiding by the pre-9/11 agreements is that ‘they are the basic fundamental documents of the negotiations. If the GPH abides by these documents and really follows them with a political will, the root causes of the armed conflict will be solved and then the Philippines can start moving forward’.

One of the principles under the JASIG is that each panel can have ‘not more than eighty-five (85) documents of identification that shall be duly recognized as safe conduct passes’ for political consultants involved in the peace process.

As of today, there are over 500 political prisoners detained in the Philippines, 18 of which are NDF peace consultants who should be protected under the JASIG.
The NDF believes that the government has refused to release the consultants as a confidence building measure because they claim that they are not consultants but rather criminals or terrorists.

The chairperson of the NDF panel, Luis Jalandoni, believes that the biggest significance of their release is that it would be in compliance with, and a show of respect for, the JASIG. It would also be a sign of seriousness in the negotiations and would show a political will in moving forward with the other reforms on the agenda.

The power to move the negotiations out of a stalemate is in the hands of the GPH, which currently controls whether or not the demands of the NDF to release the consultants will be satisfied.

Another contentious issue in the negotiations has been the government’s accusation that the NDF uses child soldiers. The NDF believes that the government has used the language of child soldiers to discredit and stigmatize the revolutionary movement.

In investigating the issue of child soldiers, the United Nations Children’s Fund requested an objective field study on the ‘needs assessment of children and women affected by armed conflict’.

The results of this study confirmed not only the staggering effects that the armed conflict has on women and children, but also that the NPA does follow the minimum age limit for its soldiers.

In support of this finding, the National Council of the NDF ratified in April 2012 the ‘Declaration and Program of Action for the Rights, Protection and Welfare of Children.’

In speaking with the Executive Director of the Children’s Rehabilitation Center (CRC) in the Philippines, Jacquiline Ruiz, she said that when ‘children are forced to falsify their participation in the armed conflict, it results in them being paraded as NPA criminals in media.’

She also noted that from July 2010 – Dec 2015, the Children’s Rehabilitation Center documented the following children’s human rights violations: the false labeling of 31 ‘child soldiers’; the extrajudicial killing of 30 children; the arrest, detainment, torture, and sexual assault of 55 children; and the forcible displacement of 38, 294 children due to military occupation and attacks on civilian communities.

The NDFP’s ‘Declaration and Program of Action for the Rights, Protection and Welfare of Children’ reiterates the NDF’s commitment to uphold, protect and promote the rights of children from oppression and exploitation, which is also outlined in the CARHRIHL. The NDFP hopes that this declaration will also encourage the GPH to work to ensure that the rights of children are protected.

Under the Aquino and Arroyo regimes, the peace negotiations have experienced years of stalemates and back channeling in the talks. What has been needed in order to move the negotiations forward is a context change in Philippines, which would entail the revolutionary movement gaining greater support from political parties.

The question we now need to ask is this, ‘Is a context change and a commitment to and respect for the peace process on the horizon’?

On June 30 of this year, Rodrigo Duterte will take office as the new President of the Philippines. He describes himself as the first Left president of the Philippines and as a socialist.

There has been a lot of talk about this new President, some good and some bad.

The bad includes his Trump-style rhetoric and his active support for extrajudicial killings, which has led human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch to voice their concerns.

The good includes over twenty years of experience in politics and success reducing the crime rate in his city, due to his tough on crime policies.

In regards to the peace process, Sison has said that ‘Duterte has been a long-time member of the multisectoral alliance BAYAN and [has cooperated] with the Communist Party of the Philippines, New People’s Army and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines for more than 20 years [during his time] as mayor’.

Duterte has stated that he intends to release all political prisoners and he will declare a ceasefire against the NPA. He had also offered the CPP four cabinet posts in the departments of labor, agrarian reform, social welfare and environment (which the NDFP declined due to the ongoing negotiations).

Once Duterte is sworn into office and his administration is able to make decisions, he will have to put fourth a genuine and sincere interest in the following:
Abstaining from using the ‘terrorist’ labels when referring to Sison, the NDFP, CPP, NPA, and any political consultants.

Reaffirming a commitment to the negotiations existing agreements (the JASIG and CARHRIHL).

Releasing all of the political consultants by general amnesty.

Implementing of a mutual ceasefire.

Accelerating the peace negotiations in regards to social and economic reforms, political and constitutional reforms, and end of hostilities and disarmament of forces.

While it is fair to remain skeptical of Duterte’s commitment to revolutionize the Philippine government from within, I think it is safe to say that we can join the NDFP negotiating panel in their hope and optimism regarding the pursuit of peace in the Philippines.

(Alicia Kuin is a Director of the ADR Institute of Ontario, Chair of Mediators Beyond Borders Canada, and Mediator with the YorkStreet Dispute Resolution Group in Toronto.)