From: aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum)
Subject: AF/ATS: interiew with NDF/NPA spokesman
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:57:54 GMT

posted by: AF/ATS
--

     Peace Negotiations in the Philippines

     A civil war has been fought in the Philippines for the past
23 years. The fall of the Marcos dictatorship in 1986 made the
prospects for peace more likely. But after the recent
presidential elections, peace now seems more distant than ever.
Negotiations between the National Democratic Front (NDF) and its
guerrilla wing, the New People's Army (NPA), were only on the
campaign platform of one minor candidate. 
     After the fall of Marcos and Aquino's take-over of power, a
series of negotiations in February 1986 led to a cease-fire and
negotiations between Aquino and the NDF/NPA. But this process
collapsed on January 22/87, when the Aquino government bloodily
crushed a protest march by farmers. This attack became known as
the "Mendiola Massacre". In March of 1987, Aquino declared
"total-war" on the left-wing resistance movement.
     Since then, the conflict has taken on disastrous
proportions: there have been over 2 million internal refugees in
the past 3 years. The murder and disappearance of legal left-wing
activists have become commonplace. Amnesty International's last
report from February of this year reported that "the murdering
continues" in the Philippines. The army and other right-wing
para-military troops roam freely.
     In 1990, a new movement towards a peace-process developed.
Church groups and non-governmental organizations took the
initiative, and in September 1991, there was a meeting in Hong
Kong between NDF leaders and Philippine army generals. A second
round of talks scheduled for March of this year in Brussels were
called off by the government at the last moment. They felt that
the meeting place (the European Parliament) was "too prominent"
and would allow the NDF a chance to spread its propaganda. Since
then, there have been no moves towards scheduling further talks.
     The following in an interview with Byron Bocar, the NDF's
representative to Western Europe:


"The talks in Hong Kong did not result in much, and the talks in
Brussels never took place. What went wrong?"

     The talks in Hong Kong were supposed to discuss respecting
human rights and applying international laws to a situation of
armed conflict. In our eyes, this is the first step of the peace-
process. Normal civilians must be protected. We had proposals
with us, but the government's delegates had nothing. They didn't
even have a mandate from the government and so they couldn't sign
or agree to anything.
     The government felt that the talks would give us
international status as a party in an armed struggle. We have
never demanded this status. The Philippine government
consistently maintains that the Philippine constitution has to be
the basis of the peace-process, and that's been the biggest
obstacle so far. That relegates the NDF and the whole national
democratic struggle to a police matter. That is not acceptable to
us. The conflict in the Philippines is not a judicial one, but a
political one. The causes of the conflict have to be settled with
political measures. Both sides have to be open to this. Only then
can serious talks begin.

"How do you account for these problems?"

     The government doesn't take the negotiations seriously. They
see the peace-process as a part of their strategy of total-war.
Aquino used the peace-process in 1986. She used it to get the
"moral justification" for resulting to a military solution to the
problem. She vowed to crush the revolutionary movement by the end
of her term. That's this June. So now she's talking about gaining
"strategic control" over the revolutionary movement by the end of
1993. As long as the government keeps thinking in those terms and
refuses to work towards a political solution to the conflict, no
advances can be made in the peace-process.

"Some people claim that the NDF don't take the peace-process
seriously, but are just using it for tactical gains. Is armed
struggle still your most important strategy?"

     You have to judge the NDF by its deeds. And when you
consider all the efforts we've made since 1988 to get people at
the negotiating table, we have to be taken in earnest. Of course
discussions about where the talks should take place are a part of
the NDF's overall strategy. But we have stated that we want to
continue with the peace-process until a political solution is
reached. We stand by that promise.

"But until then, you'll keep shooting?"

     Yes...there can be no cease-fire without a clear proposal
and time-table for talks. We learned that back in 1986/87. At
that time, we agreed to a cease-fire before the agenda for the
talks had been set. But all the government wanted to talk about
was our surrender. So the armed struggle continues.

"But isn't that an odd combination, peace-negotiations and armed
struggle?"

     In some areas, we have structures in place that have to be
defended. We have to maintain and expand our strength. That is
necessary, so that we will be taken seriously at negotiations.
You could compare this to El Salvador. The peace-process there
only got underway when the US recognized that the FMLN rebels
could not be defeated militarily. Even though the far-right
Christiani was in power...just like here in the Philippines. Some
members of the government, and especially the military,
consistently maintain that we have to be crushed militarily.

"Within the NDF, are negotiations viewed as reformist?"

     No. The fact that you have built up enough strength and
organization to force the elite to negotiate about changing the
fundamental problems affecting the population helps get at the
roots of the problem. If negotiations lead to this, then we view
it as part of the revolutionary process. What's more, the peace
movement in the Philippines realizes that peace means more than
just the absence of war. We have to find solutions to the
problems which cause the conflict.

"Can this be compared to El Salvador?"

     The process that we are involved in is much like it was in
El Salvador, but the eventual content will be decided by the
negotiations themselves. We won't lay down our weapons before
there is complete agreement on social, economic, and political
reforms.

"Did the FMLN give up on too many of its demands?"

     In many ways, their agenda didn't differ from ours. But we
disagree on the end result. Many of us feel that they gave more
than they got.

"Can you be more concrete? Will industries be nationalized?"

     I don't know. But one point is the dismantling of the
guerilla-army. It seems that the FMLN agreed to leave the
government's army intact, more so than they wanted, while their
forces would be incorporated into the police. As for the other
reforms, there still have to be a number of constitutional
changes. Some people doubt whether there have been enough
guarantees secured of actual reforms. The FMLN have said that the
people are their best guarantee, and international
solidarity...The discussions are still taking place. We will have
to examine the specific advantages and disadvantages of the
actual accord. As for the Philippines, that will depend on the
balance of power.

"What role do elections play in your strategy?"

     We naturally don't take part, but we do view them as
strategically important. We encourage the progressive
organizations to take part and support progressive candidates.
Everything we win in the elections is gladly taken, but elections
are not as important as building peoples-organizations and the
armed struggle. These elections won't lead to meaningful change.
Not one single candidate is even addressing the fundamental
problems affecting the people.

"What do you think you can concretely achieve?"

     First, progressive candidates can be chosen. But at the
national level, they have little chance in the "guns, goons, and
gold" system. They have a better chance at the local level, even
though their effect there is minimal. The important thing is to
advance the struggle of the peoples' movement. Electoral struggle
and mass-struggle must go together. Another important point is
the American military bases. Last year, the Senate reached a new
agreement on the bases. It should stay that way. It's important
to elect enough senators who are opposed to the bases. In line
with this, major progressive organizations are trying to make
such issues central political questions in the elections.

"But with little success, one would think...have the peace-
process and the total-war become hot issues?"

     No. But the pressure by the peace-movement on the
politicians has had some effect. Presidential candidate Salonga
publicly declared his willingness to enter into an agreement with
the NDF. Even Ramos has mentioned the issue, but he only talks of
our surrender.

"If Ramos is elected president [he was -ed.], how will the NDF
insure that the government begins negotiations?"

     We have little choice. We will keep defending ourselves
against the government's total-war, which will surely continue,
and we will try to put pressure on the Ramos government. Military
successes by the NPA will weaken the army's faith in their
ability to defeat us militarily. In addition to this, it's
important that the peace-movement stay strong. There is now a
group calling themselves 'peace initiators'. This is the broadest
group to date. They want to act as intermediaries. The government
needs to clearly state what it wants from the peace-process.
That's why they may come to The Netherlands to speak with the
NDF. If this happens, the peace-process will have advanced one
step. Then we can begin to discuss dates and delegates. Of
course, international support for the peace process is also
important. The Swiss and Swedish governments have offered to host
talks in Geneva and Stockholm respectively, but foreign minister
Manglapus refused this offer. The European Parliament passed a
resolution expressing its hope that the new Philippine government
will take steps towards peace and improving human rights. But
pressure from the US government is crucial. American churches
have taken some initiatives. We need to have other governments
and parliaments expressing a need for peace. But so far, that
hasn't happened.

"So the American presidential election is important. Who do you
support, Clinton or Bush?"

     Well, what can I say? That's like choosing between Coke and
Pepsi...No, give me Heineken...or San Miguel [the most popular
beer in the Philippines -ed.]."


[from Konfrontatie #11]


--
                     autonome forum: aforum@moose.uvm.edu
                          "solidarity is a weapon!"
--



Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive