Part 1: A hopeful, but guarded, annotation
Naga City, 2 December 2023
This is an initial hopeful critical paragraph-by-paragraph annotation of, including some questions on, the breakthrough four-paragraph Joint Statement signed by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) on November 23, 2023, in Oslo, Norway (the third-party facilitator). Admittedly, this was without being privy to why and how this pleasant surprise came about, with some, if not many, on both sides blindsided by the necessary secrecy. For now, let us simply discern the text of the following:
JOINT STATEMENT
Cognizant of the serious socioeconomic and environmental issues, and the foreign security threats facing the country, the parties recognize the need to unite as a nation in order to urgently address these challenges and resolve the reasons for the armed conflict.
Annotation:
1. “Unite as a nation” sounds, on the one hand, like Marcosian uniteam, and on the other hand, like Maoist united front.
2. Relevant to the latter is the new mention of “the foreign security threats facing the country” which connotes China’s encroachments in the West Philippine Sea. This brings to mind the anti-Japanese united fronts in China and the Philippines during World War II. The GRP and the NDFP certainly agree about a Chinese imperialist threat but not about a U.S. imperialist threat, or about non-alignment in case of a U.S.-China war.
3. Another new mention of “environmental issues” connotes the climate change existential threat that could take precedence over the contradictions among the Philippines, China, and the U.S. As it has been put before, the “contradiction between man and nature” can become the principal contradiction that takes precedence over the “contradiction between man and man.” It might then be asked, could a national united front between the GRP and the NDFP to address climate change also be part of a global united front with China, the U.S., and for that matter the rest of the world?
The parties agree to a principled and peaceful resolution of the armed conflict. Resolving the roots of the armed conflict and ending the armed struggle shall pave the way for the transformation of the CPP-NPA-NDFP.
Annotation:
4. “Ending the armed struggle” appears directed only at the NDFP. The phrase “resolution of the armed conflict” is more balanced or two-sided.
5. Still another new mention “transformation of the CPP-NPA-NDFP” can only meaningfully connote, for purposes of a “peaceful resolution,” a shift from armed struggle or, more precisely, its current strategy of protracted people’s war. Is such a paradigm shift in the cards?
6. There is no mention of a corresponding transformation of the GRP, especially its Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and Philippine National Police (PNP). Be that as it may, this could be covered under whatever relevant political, military and police reforms in case this goes as far as a final peace agreement.
The parties acknowledge the deep-rooted socio-economic and political grievances and agree to come up with a framework that sets the priorities for the peace negotiation with the aim of achieving the relevant socioeconomic and political reforms towards a just and lasting peace. Such framework, that will set the parameters for the final peace agreement, shall be agreed upon by both parties.
Annotation:
7. “Agree to come up with a framework that sets the priorities for the peace negotiation… that will set the parameters for the final peace agreement” connotes that no such framework exists yet, despite the long-time 1992 Hague Joint Declaration framework. Is that to no longer be the controlling framework that sets the priorities and the parameters?
8. What then becomes of the status and role, if any, of the past key GRP-NDFP peace agreements circa the 1990s, particularly the Hague Joint Declaration, the 1995 Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG), and the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL)?
Consequently, we envision and look forward to a country where a united people can live in peace and prosperity.
Annotation:
9. Again, the Marcosian unity theme. This is not the first short and sweet Joint Statement of this sort declaring the intent to resume or renew long-suspended peace negotiations, only to fall by the wayside of already six past presidential administrations since 1986. Public reactions of skepticism, along with guarded optimism, are thus not surprising.
10. And so, is this for real this time? Does this already represent a war and peace paradigm shift on both sides now? Because only this would lead “to a principled and peaceful resolution of the armed conflict.”
Part 2: Room for the human element in the GRP-NDFP peace framework?
Naga City, 1 January 2024
As we enter the New Year, it has been noted by Satur C. Ocampo that “By all indications, the coming year will see the continuation and even intensification of devastating wars in the world… Even here in the Philippines, deadly hostilities are taking place.” Some of these recent hostilities here have seen a highlighted human element of fratricidal war in the local communist armed conflict.
Last Christmas Day, of all days, there was a Philippine Army operation, with aerial bombardment and artillery shelling, against the New People’s Army (NPA) in the hinterlands of Malaybalay City, Bukidnon, that reportedly resulted in the killing of 10 NPAs. Among them were a family of three — Beverly Sinunta (said to be secretary of the Sub-Regional Command in Bukidnon), her husband Alfredo Banawan (said to be the deputy secretary) and their daughter Chen-Chen Banawan – who all hail from Quezon town, Bukidnon.
Three days after, or last December 28, ironically Niños Inocentes day, in another Army-NPA clash, this time in Sergio Osmeña town, Zamboanga del Norte, three NPAs were reported killed. One of them was Maria Luz Ranan, said to be secretary of the Guerrilla Front Sendong operating in Misamis Occidental. Her remains were claimed by her brother, a soldier of the Army’s 10th Infantry Battalion, the same unit that was pursuing the Guerrilla Front. Brig. Gen. Elmer Suderio, commander of the 102nd Infantry Brigade, said: “It was only lately that we discovered this fact. It was a sad ending for her as we were told that her brother did everything to convince her to return to the fold of the law, to no avail.”
Ranan of course must have had her strong reasons for staying with the NPA, as did the Sinunta-Banawan family of three, and they themselves may even say “no regrets” in this life-and-death struggle choice of theirs. The NPA would undoubtedly hail them as new revolutionary heroes and martyrs. Still, there has to be an element of sadness about such fratricidal turns of events. And of course, it is not only about NPA deaths but also those of government soldiers, police officers and related personnel as well as of innocent civilians caught in the crossfire.
Also, in the news last December 29 about old prisoners awaiting release was the story of ailing 84-year-old Gerardo dela Peña of Camarines Norte. He was charged in a Daet court for murdering his nephew Melchor in 2001 but was arrested only in 2013 and eventually convicted in 2014. It was alleged that he and his brother Armenio were NPA members who suspected Melchor of being an intelligence asset of the military. Again, do we need this kind of fratricidal armed conflict even if waged for “resolving the roots of the armed conflict”? Does the line “from war, peace will be born” still ring?
The above-said news stories come as cautionary tales so soon after the hopeful development that was the new Oslo Joint Statement of last November 23. Here the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) “agreed to a principled and peaceful resolution of the armed conflict” and “agreed to come up with a framework that sets the priorities for the peace negotiation with the aim of achieving the relevant socioeconomic and political reforms towards a just and lasting peace.”
Aside from “the serious socioeconomic and environmental issues, and the foreign security threats facing the country,” is there room in that framework for the human element and repair of the tattered social fabric? After all, the Joint Statement speaks of “the need to unite as a nation in order to address these challenges and resolve the reasons for the armed conflict” and of “a country where a united people can live in peace and prosperity.” This spirit of the Joint Statement is just as important as its letter.
(Header photo credit: Presidential Communications Office)
About the author:
SOLIMAN M. SANTOS, JR. is a recently retired RTC Judge of Naga City; a long-time human rights and humanitarian lawyer; legislative consultant and legal scholar; peace advocate, researcher, and writer; author of several books, including How do you solve a problem like the GRP-NDFP peace process? Part 2 (Sulong Peace, 2022) and the newly released TIGAON 1969: Untold Stories of the CPP-NPA, KM, and SDK (Ateneo University Press, 2023).