Peace Talks: Another Ending in Sight?

THIS TIME, it is a “permanent termination” — words used by President Rodrigo Duterte in announcing yet another end to the peace talks with the Communist Party of the Philippines-New People’s Army-National Democratic Front (CPP-NPA-NDF) on March 21. This was preceded by his disbanding the negotiating team which have been meeting with their counterparts on the other side of the table since 2016.

Duterte’s peace panel was preceded by those organized by previous administrations in pursuit of peace, with the goal of ending the longest standing communist insurgency in the world.

The announcement may have been seen as simply a repeat of the Proclamation 360 which the president issued in November 2017 when he had said he was ending the government’s peace negotiations with the Left.  While there had been several attempts to revive the peace talks since then, the hostile verbal jousting between the president and CPP founder Jose Maria Sison along with continued disagreements over several key issues betrayed the deep breach between the positions taken by both sides.

Sison responded to the March statement and disbandment of the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) peace panel by saying that the president’s repeated withdrawal from the peace talks was only “driving more nails into the coffin of the peace negotiations under his regime.”

For Real?

Is this the final ending?

The media reported this development the way they do breaking news, quoting primarily what the president said and seeking comments of others. With the prospect of permanently ending the national peace process with the CPP-NPA, one would have expected a review of its long history since 1986 when Corazon Aquino called for the release of political prisoners detained during the Marcos regime as a gesture of reconciliation, along with the setting up of the Peace Commission which laid the ground for the government’s long term quest for peace on all fronts. When Fidel V. Ramos, a former military general, became president, he established the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP), providing the administrative structure that served the peace initiatives of Gloria Arroyo and Benigno Aquino III.

But there was little inclination on the part of reporters to recall history, not even the on-again off-again pattern of negotiations under Duterte. Reports hardly noted that the president had made previous claims that he was no longer interested in talking peace with the Reds — only to change his mind again and again. (See Box below). 

An exception, the in-depth report by Philstar.com on March 21 gave a quick recap of peace talks under the Duterte administration and called attention to the times that the president went back on his word. It also pointed out that the government had suspended previous agreements, including the Hague Joint Declaration and the Comprehensive Agreement for the Respect of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Laws (CARHRIHL). Under CARHRIHL, the government committed to “uphold, protect and promote the full scope of human rights, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.”

The same report also noted how the CPP has rejected the localized peace talks, saying issues like landlessness and poverty that prompted rebels to take up arms against the government should be addressed through socio-economic reforms.

In general, media did not refer to any factors which suggested that Duterte’s declaration was indeed final, and that it has permanently dismantled the peace process with the Communists.

Such action would have serious implications for national order and security as it would commit government’s armed forces to a sustained war of attrition. The sense of any dire outcome moving forward was absent in most media reports. 

Localized Peace Talks

Questioned by the media, Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo talked about the government changing its approach: “We are just trying a different tact by localizing the peace talks as the concerns of rebels groups vary from one locality to another, especially so that Mr. Sison appears not to have control over the communist forces on the ground.”

Media picked up on the idea but most reports merely echoed the administration pronouncement, without seeking more information on what localized peace talks would entail in terms of its implementation. Given Panelo’s opening, not enough journalists went to Gen. Carlito Galvez to get his reaction. If this notion has been discussed seriously by the government, then the OPAPP chief should have had a role in this discussion.

It remains to be seen whether the Duterte administration is serious about pursuing this alternative path to peace as Duterte himself did not say anything about such an initiative. But this is hardly surprising, given the twists and turns of the peace process under his watch.

Time to Shift Media Focus

Cyclical failure has caused media’s interest in peace talks with the CPP-NPA to wane. The terms of the various agreements that both parties have signed to have been far too complex for the general public to appreciate.

And yet, the issues of conflict and peace are real; as the ideas of the Left about development need to be part of the general discourse as these would deepen the discussion of national policies and programs.

Perhaps, the official peace process on this front can use this break for reflection and recovery. And if indeed, the national peace talks are permanently terminated, the coverage of peace issues should move out of the official channels on either side of this long conflict.

It is time for the media to take the discussion to the people where on various media platforms, the search for peace can engage all citizens, but most especially, those who have suffered the costs of an endless war.

Termination on Loop

In brief:

Despite his proclamation that effectively terminated the negotiations in 2017, the president changed his tune and announced that he was again open to the peace talks in April of 2018. Duterte even set a 60-day time frame for the peace talks and pledged to shoulder all expenses. (See monitor: “Restarting Peace Talks: Reports Holding Back on Hope”)

In May 2018, the Philippine government and the CPP-NDFP held informal meetings in Europe to resume peace talks. However, the compromise was short-lived and the government went on another about-face in the following month. The government cancelled the formal negotiations and suspended the back channel talks in which Norway had served as third-party facilitator. (See monitor: “Confused or Clueless About Norway’s Role? Why Blame the Media?”)

This was followed by more backpedaling of the president with the cancellation of scheduled talks in August and October 2018.

In December 2018, the president signed EO 70 that institutionalized a “whole-of-nation” approach “in attaining an inclusive and sustainable peace.” Through the EO, the president also introduced a mechanism for local peace engagements and negotiations. A few months later, in February 2019, the president offered anew the resumption of peace talks with the CPP-NDFP. Not surprisingly, the president went back on his word again; and on March 21, announced that he would no longer entertain “any intervention or maybe persuasions in this democratic state of the Republic of the Philippines.”