Bencyrus Ellorin
UNLESS political resolution is arrived, all elements of armed conflict between a state and a non-state actor persist.
The announcement of the New People’s Army (NPA), armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines, that it is lifting its unilateral ceasefire with the government midnight of Feb. 10, 2017 should not come as a surprise. Even with the peace process, they remain a fighting revolutionary organization.
Good there was a lull in armed skirmishes between the NPA and the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Philippine National Police and state-sponsored paramilitary groups since the assumption of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte. Thought to be friendly with the left, President Duterte resurrected the peace process with the National Democratic Front, representing the CPP and NPA in the peace table.
This peace process has not made substantial movement since the Ramos administration. Duterte’s peace offering was a welcome respite. He started by releasing 20 or so political detainees, many claimed by the NDF as its peace process consultants. The detention of leftist leaders has become a thorny issue. It has been a non-negotiable.
Furthermore, the NPA needs to show it is still a force to reckon with, especially with perception that the president, thought to be a leftist, had the movement in the bag. In fact, the open left has been divided on the issue of human rights and extra-judicial killings. It was slow in condemning the atrocities, especially in the anti-drug war which has already claimed over 7,000 lives. Many thought, it’s strong military posturing increases its position in the peace negotiation table.
Last Wednesday, the NPA spokesman Jorge “Oris” Madlos announced the decision of the NPA to lift its unilateral ceasefire. Even as the peace panels of the NDF and the GRP were on the second round of talks in Rome just finished, fresh skirmishes between the NPA and state forces erupted in Surigao del Sur and in Makilala, North Cotabato.
Among the reasons of the withdrawal of unilateral ceasefire is the nonelease of over a hundred political detainees, comrades-in-arm of red fighters. President Duterte was quoted saying that he is withholding their release as he may lose bargaining chips in the negotiations. This obviously does not sit well with the red fighters.
Reciprocity is important in peace processes. The unilateral ceasefire of the NPA was a reciprocal move of the left to the ceasefire offered by President Duterte in his first State of the Nation Address.
Oddly, while there were two unilateral ceasefires, there is no bilateral agreement for a ceasefire. Meaning, the terms of reference of the ceasefire is not inclusive to both parties.
The bilateral ceasefire, which would govern the conduct of armed forces of both the NDF and the GRP was supposed to be on the agenda of the Rome round of talks. They ended without touching the agenda.
It is encouraging that instead of reciprocating with the withdrawal of the GRP’s unilateral ceasefire, the government peace panel is recommending to the President to hold on its own ceasefire declaration.
Hopefully, Malacanang, despite the volcanic temper of the president will uphold this recommendation. It is prayed the doves in Malacanang and the military will prevail, and the statement to hold on to its ceasefire declaration is not a lip service from the peace panel.
Hopefully, too, the bilateral ceasefire will be tackled when the peace talks resume at the Utrecht in The Netherlands at the end of the month.
The citizenry should get involved in the peace process. Some quarters are asserting that the people should have ownership over the peace process. How this ownership of the process can be integrated in the peace negotiating table has been a challenge. Certainly however, the people can be active in the sidelines--they can tenably express pressure on the parties of the conflict to stick to the peace agenda and not be swayed or lost by non-substantial issues.
The optimism, especially for escalated rural development cannot be denied with the peace process finally resumed. Hopefully this can be sustained.
The peace panels should focus on hammering the second substantive agenda – political and economic reforms and repair kinks in the first substantive agenda – the Comprehensive Agreement of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law.
Viewed on a broader perspective, it is hoped that the recent announcement of the NPA is just part of the whole process. It should be understood that as long there is no peace agreement the elements of war--armed confrontation, propaganda and counter-propaganda exists.
It is in this context that the public, the owners of the peace process should resoundingly call on the parties of the conflict to stand down.
E-mail: bency.ellorin@gmail.com
