WILL PHILIPPINE INSURGENCIES END SOON?

Erle Frayne D. Argonza

Magandang hapon! Good afternoon!

It is still poll day as of this writing, as the day’s polling time has been extended till 7 p.m. Poll-related incidence had accordingly dropped by 200% since 2004, an encouraging development amidst a backdrop of systemic violence.

What I’d reflect about this time is the insurgency question: whether the country’s decades-old insurgencies will cease after the installation of a new national leadership. The communist and Bangsamoro insurgents have been conducting peace talks with the Philippine state for a long time now, and there’s no question that insurgencies’ end is in the wish list of diverse stakeholders.

In a society where trust has been torn asunder by the prevalence of polarized mind frames for centuries now, it is understandable that insurgencies will persist for some time. Building mutual trust and confidence is therefore a sine qua non to the end of insurgencies.

Economistic apperceptions of insurgencies, such as to account them solely to high poverty incidence, would hardly hold water. Canada, for instance, is a prosperous country with good governance in place, yet a part of it (Quebec) almost bolted away from the Canadian state.

Addressing poverty, which is now at 33-35% incidence rate, is surely a must, added to food security. There is no denying that this has been on the agenda of peace talks, aside from the options for the livelihood of combatant insurgents when they go back to the mainstream in the case of a political settlement.

What we can see from the economistic discourse is that addressing poverty and social injustices would be good approaches to re-building trust and confidence.  During the first two (2) years of the new political dispensation, there has to be a trickling down of incomes to enable poverty reduction, which should convince the insurgents of the sincerity and competence of the leadership in handling the socio-economic malaise of our society.

Furthermore, there has to be relentless efforts made by civil society, church, state, and philanthropic groups to build a culture of tolerance and peace. Peace talks shouldn’t be left to government and insurgents alone, in other words, but should involve the broadest sector of society.

The building of mutual trust, confidence, and contextual building of peace and tolerance, will redound to constructing greater civility and cooperation. A ‘dialogue of civilizations’ is a broad manifestation of a culture of peace and tolerance permeating the private sphere, which is a cherished human condition by the peoples of the world.

Insurgents are incidentally growing old, and are getting weary of the war itself. They want peace, and this is a boon to the peace talks. In our day-to-day conduct of affairs as a people, we should continue to build trust in the private spaces of our lives. This, we hope, would encourage insurgents to forge new social arrangements with us on a people-to-people basis, a step that would bring us closer to a high-trust environment.

We must also continue to exert pressure on the Phiippine state and insurgents to continue to dialogue and put a time limit to the peace talks. Peace talks have already dragged on for decades, so maybe it would prove fruitful to put a time cap on the talks. We can use organizational instruments that we have, such as professional, crafts, and civil society groups.

Let us hope that we don’t have a hawkish regime forthcoming. A regime of hawks would be anachronistic to the overall trend today of higher expectations for peace and a sustained dialogue between state and insurgents.

We are all running against time today, even as we citizens of an war-torn country are tired and weary of the wars. New weapons of mass destruction, such as the Tesla Earthquake Machine or TEM, are moving out of assembly lines, and sooner or later they would be traded via organized crime groups to hot-headed insurgent and jihadist groups locally.

A wish indeed, let us hope that the two (2) insurgencies will be settled finally, with the former rebels integrated into the mainstream to participate in parliamentary politics and civil society engagements. This will give us breathing spaces we need to concur more social cooperation and economic amelioration in the short run.

With the large insurgencies gone, the police & military forces can then focus their efforts on clamping down jihadist movements that we perceive as illegitimate or criminal groups. In no way should government negotiate with groups that possess warped sense of community and are unwilling to recognize the full import of dialogue and tolerance.

[Philippines, 10 May 2010.]

[See: IKONOKLAST: http://erleargonza.blogspot.com,

UNLADTAU: https://unladtau.wordpress.com,

COSMICBUHAY: http://cosmicbuhay.blogspot.com,

BRIGHTWORLD: http://erlefraynebrightworld.wordpress.com, ARTBLOG: http://erleargonza.wordpress.com,

ARGONZAPOEM: http://argonzapoem.blogspot.com]

OLIGARCHISM AND WHY RP REBELLIONS ARE UNSTOPPABLE

Bro. Erle Frayne  Argonza

[Writ 11 May 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila]

Rebellions and wars serve greed, the greed of oligarchs and moneybags who make money out of conflicts everywhere. Research findings have clearly indicated that during the 2^nd World War, the industrial-financier elites of the West served both the Nazi-Fascists and Allied camps, precisely by arming and financing both. It doesn’t matter really what side wins, for in the end the oligarchs win the game.

When the navy officer Trillanes & company waged their failed mutiny a couple of years back, and repeated the fiasco last year, they stated clearly a fact that startled them. Per the accounts of some junior military officers, in some campaign sorties they were ordered by their higher officials to drop arms to the road area that was declared Muslim rebel zone or friendly to rebels. What was this game all about? Why should they drop arms to enemy zones?

The military rebels concluded that their superiors, who go all the way up to defense headquarters, were selling arms to the rebels. Likewise did they conclude that, with such evils going on (selling arms to rebels), it was impossible for the rebellions (Muslims, Maoist, jihadist terrorist) to ever cease at all. Both rebel and state officials have been raking profits from the war, the rebels need not find mainstream jobs as war provides them the bread and adventures, while state official fatten their purses with ordnance sales to their erstwhile enemies.

But the more startling find by the military rebels was that the network thread of the Philippine state officials led directly to Pentagon. Which aroused suspicion that the command for making hotspot troubles in the Philippines was directly coming from rouge forces in the USA, notably the neo-conservatives (Ramsfeld & company). Seeing this evil thread of conceit and greed, the Magdalo soldiers then made a call to arms to save the republic from snakes and demonic forces out to destroy the nation.

The astounding findings of the Magdalo forces leads us to ask to ask: does it really pay to stamp off rebellions through mediations by 3^rd party peace-makers, when the real roots of conflicts remain unaddressed? Will rebellions and wars across the globe really cease at all when the oligarchic forces that fund, arm and profit from wars go unchecked in their greed and madness? Is it not the true case that all rebel forces for that matter were in fact constituted through the auspices of the same global oligarchy that has been manipulating food stocks and prices lately, acts that added flames to the already volatile peace situation everywhere?

All major ideological forces for that matter in this country as it is elsewhere have the hands of the global oligarchy  in their formation. Take the Maoist group (CPP-NPA) which was formed as the armed NPA met the new Communists (Jose Maria Sison-led) under the graces of a CIA agent, Ninoy Aquino. In the mid-1970s, as the Bangsamoro separatist rebellion was raging in Mindanao, its leader Nur Misuari was secretly brought to a house in a gated Makati village, where he talked to American agents, was promised support provided that, if the MNLF wins, Mindanao will be a major basing area for US military facilities. Even the MILF, which continues the armed Bangsamoro separatist war, cannot escape that observation of Americans getting involved somewhere in their campaigns, both in terms of arms support and information.

Worst of all, inside the CPP itself were operatives of the US CIA, a truism that eventually the Maoist hierarchy itself recognized. This led to the split in the Left and the bloody purging of ex-CPP cadres who were suspected of CIA connections. I myself received a confidential note from a former top-policy state advisor and international consultant, about the involvement of the Tabara & company CPP officials in receiving arms straight from US defense agents when Tabara was still with the CPP.

Last question that comes to mind is: why are Jose Maria Sison and his sub-alterns sitting prettily in Ultrecth (Netherlands), when they should be in the Philippine boondocks where their comrades are? Aren’t the Maoists being protected by unseen agents representing the interests of the Anglo-Dutch oligarchs, waiting in the wings for whatever the greedy elites have in mind for RP and the Reds?    

Unless oligarchism itself is stamped out, we’re going to have more rebel wars here in RP and elsewhere. Oligarchic madness is the root of global conflagrations, and stamping it out is not an easy thing to do. It will take the efforts of audacious, courageous patriots representing the interests of nation-states or entities whose creations began first of all with stamping out oligarchism in Europe from Westphalian time (1648) onwards. And that collective effort will be a protracted one.

RP’S CESSATION OF ARMED REBELLION HIGHLY VIABLE

Erle Frayne D. Argonza

[Writ 07 May 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila]

Peace be with you!

On the year of my birth in 1958, my country (Philippines) raged with fiery caldrons of armed hostilities in all islands. The Old Left rebellion was already petering out though, and local millenarian rebellions in other islands were also being check-mated. My father was a young soldier then, and bringing along his experience in Korea plus his scout ranger training, he went about running after rebels and winning accolades. Mind you, my father was even absent on my natality day (July 6), as he was busy running after some armed millenarians in the south.

Well, I was nourished with so many tales of heroism and wars in the islands, beginning with the Americo-Japanese war (it was called ‘World War II’ hmmm), and then the rebellions. In the early ‘60s the Old Left capitulated, and only ‘lost commands’ were the remains of the army divisions and companies of the Hukbong Mapagpalaya ng Bayan or HMB (People’s Liberation Army). We simply called them rebels ‘huks’, a core of which later joined the Maoists to comprise the New Peoples’ Army or NPA.

Then, with the founding of the new Communist Party (Maoist) in 1968 and its armed with New People’s Army in 1969, new rebel offensives turned many idyllic lands into howling war zones. Since then, I never knew of any year in my life when peace prevailed in the islands. There were only short episodes of ceasefires lasting for days to a few weeks at the most. I even visited a rebel camp in Quezon during a ceasefire in 1987, had some photo-ops with the NPAs. Often than not, our history in Manila (signifying the whole of RP) was one of wars.

This is not ‘rumors of wars’ here, remember. Whatever is it that is in the psyche of Filipinos which produces audacious warriors is something else worth studying. General Douglas MacArthur was so amazed at the unbelievable audacity and acumen of Filipinos in warfare that he designated Filipino troops as bridgehead storm troops in his campaigns (World War II, Korea War), much like the ‘Gurka regiment’ of the British Empire. Something in our psyche makes us natural warriors, but hey! this is the era of Information Society, so warriorship must be translated into management acumen, audacity and courage, and not manifest as gun-firing praetorian behavior that belongs to the ancient past.

But surprisingly, in the 1990s, the state was able to prove that ‘cessation of armed hostility’ or COAH was a viable one. First, there was the formal declaration by the social democratic army to cease armed struggle, even as its cadres and troops joined the Cory Aquino regime and surreptitiously comprised the ‘yellow army’.

Then, after a series of failed mutinies and coup attempts, the Reform the Armed Forces-Young Officers’ Union-Soldiers of the Filipino People or RAM-YOU-SFP, was finally settled as the coalition signed a negotiated peace settlement with the Ramos regime. Imagine this surprising development, from a rebel force that bombed Manila and the army camp to smithereens a few years back! I saw with my own eyes the barbarity and economic paralysis induced by actual wars in Manila, with my own eyes! I thought then that war was only for the rural backwoods.  I couldn’t believe the rebels would join the mainstream, but they did!

Finally, there was the negotiated settlement with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and its armed wing, the Bangsamoro Army (BMA), also during the Ramos regime. Nur Misuari, head of MNLF, his cadres and troops joined the mainstream. Misuari became governor-elect of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao or ARMM, while 7,000 BMA troops were integrated into both the national police and army. To think that this group once almost won over the war in Mindanao in 1973!

Today we still have the CPP-NPA insurgency and the MILF-BiAF insurgency (Moro Islamic Liberation Front-Bangsamoro Islaic Armed Forces) to deal with. Talks get stalled every now and then. But chances are that they will be negotiated, based on a win-win formula. What more can make me and my cohorts, and now the younger generations, happier when this happens? I’m sure I’d weep so much with happiness and euphoria when this happens. Finally here we are, respecting each other as brothers and sisters, and decide to ‘communicate, cooperate and collaborate’ (3 Cs) rather than shoot down each other.

An array of methods and strategies were explored no less from many sides to finally make rebels and state sit down together. To name some: face-to-face talk between officially negotiated parties; back-channel talks to reinforce confidence-building; mediation by 3^rd parties (friendly states); peace consultants comprising of international law and development experts on both sides; civil society and church support, aside from their role in monitoring the conduct of hostilities and short ceasefires; periodic peace rallies via prayer, concerts, parades, special events by citizens, church, NGOs; peace advocacy by teachers/educators in schools; peace zones declared by all parties in specially designated towns; initiatives by local government units & players at confidence-building; and, mandating rebels sometimes to help in anti-drug and anti-Islamic terrorist campaigns (boosting mutual confidence).

Exasperated to the extremes now after four (4) decades of war, I am so impatient for peace, for a true cessation of armed hostility. I wish that at least one insurgency can be concluded soon before 2010 (presidential election). Maybe the next exec will pick up the task and conclude the remaining insurgency. The next decade can then witness the fruition of a 7-decade campaign to bring RP to developed country status, which I now opine can happen only if the two (2) insurgencies can be concluded.

For our dream of peace in RP, carpe diem! We shall overcome!

  

MANILA PEACE UPDATE: BACK-CHANNEL TALK WITH MAOIST REBELS

Erle Frayne D. Argonza

 

[Writ 01 May 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila. The author, a professor at the premier University of the Philippines, was a former consultant and senior official at the presidential palace.]

 

Let me share to you some notes about the efficacy of the back-channel strategy as applied to the Peace Talks. By Peace Talks I refer to the on-going negotiations between the GRP (Government of the Republic of the Philippines) and the rebel groups (National Democratic Front, Moro Islamic Liberation Front). For this briefer, I will focus on the GRP-NDF talks, the NDF being the Maoist movement led by the clandestine Communist Party of the Philippines (founded 1968).

 

The Maoist rebellion here began as soon as the New People’s Army or NPA, the military arm of the CPP, was formed. The Philippines than was predominantly agrarian, landlordism was the main stumbling block to industrial progress, the 1948-launced Import Substitution Industrialization was floundering badly, and mass poverty must have been reaching as much as past the 75% mark. With an agrarian population as base, it wasn’t difficult for the CPP-NPA to justify an armed struggle based on the Maoist strategy of encirclement: build rebel based first in the hinterlands where the enemy forces are weak, then gradually constrict the urban areas (cities, big towns) from the countryside.

 

Almost four (4) decades after the launching of the Maoist rebellion, nowhere is there any site of a victory by the Left rebels. Supposedly, the guerilla fronts have reached past the 3-digit level (160+ as of latest claims by the CPP), but those are largely spread out in rural hinterlands. RP’s population is now around 60% urban and only 40% rural, and urbanization is still spreading fast, mutating the rural landscapes into new mixed-use urban and suburban mini-cities.

 

It is now getting clearer that the Maoist rebellion here has been reduced to a Zapatista-sized rebellion, and its strategy of encirclement has become obviously intractable and nauseatingly archaic. Unless that it shifts in strategy from rural-based armed struggle to urban-based mass movement type, the new Zapatistas of Manila (CPP-NDF) may lose enormous mileage in their campaigns and legitimacy. A rising middle class here will never be able to identify with a movement that tends to diminish the importance of the ‘middle sectors’ in shaping the political wind, most specially in Asia to which Manila is now closely hued to (for many centuries the Philippines was alien to Asia and was more hued to its colonial masters in the West).

 

Often than not, the Peace Talks get stalled. This has been the history of negotiations here. But at least what is clear, as has been shown by the past negotiations with the military rebels and the Moro National Liberation Front or MNLF, is that the GRP talking point is not “surrender all of you or die!” but rather one of negotiated political settlement. It took much time for the GRP to admit to this new precept in peace talks, but state negotiators have to rather take this option as it had proved relatively successful as exemplified by the previous cases.

 

One strategy used by the GRP whenever peace talks get stalled is the ‘back-channel talk’. Often than not, the names of back-channel negotiators are not identified at all in public, or that the information is strictly confidential. Having once moved in the corridors of power as a consultant and later a senior state official at the presidential palace, my very own boss then was among them, and his experiences in the BCT (shortened ‘back-channel talk’) are my basis for assessing the efficacy of the strategy.

I found out, to my own dismay being a patriot who was impatient for results, that the peace talks get stalled every now and then not because of ‘insincerity’ of the ‘other party’ but rather due to the lack of trust by the rebels in the GRP negotiating panel’s composition. One must realize that here in Manila, the ‘nat-dems’ (the Maoist national democrats) had that historical animosities and antipathies with the ‘soc-dems’ (non-Maoist social democrats) who were indeed rabidly anti-communist as any observer would notice. Sadly, before the incumbent president GM Arroyo sat in power, the ‘soc-dems’ were already visible and influential in shaping the contours of peace talks including those held with the Muslim rebels.

 

In 2004, barely had the presidential election campaign commence when the peace talk stalled again. The usual bitter reason raised, as per information coming straight from the rebels to their contacts in the GRP other than the peace panel, was the ‘soc-dem’ presence in that (peace) panel (notably the intelligence top-gun Norberto Gonzales, and another ‘soc-dem’ cabinet member Ging Deles). Before that, in the 1990s, there was the complaint against the ‘opus dei’ negotiators. You see, the NDF can never really trust these negotiators who hinge their loyalty to their Vatican-led spin doctors.

 

The ‘nat-dem’ line is that the ‘soc-dem’ and their predecessors the ‘opus dei’ are clerico-fascist, are rabidly anti-communist and will never trust communists or Marxists of whatever rainbow hue they possess. The cleric-fascists supposedly opt for a total destruction of anything Marxist, much more of Maoists, and cannot be trusted in any way in peace negotiations. Of course, in the open mass media the typical line of the Maoists is that GRP is insincere, a line that the MILF rebels likewise echo.

 

That’s why it pays for any incoming president in particular to review the composition of the peace group that s/he inherits from a previous president. Well, the fact is that all the presidents from Corazon Aquino through Gloria Arroyo owe their victories in one way or another to the support of the ‘Jesuit mafia’ (to whom the ‘soc-dems’ owe allegiance) and the ‘opus dei’ (RP’s version of generalissimo Franco’s phalangists). So nary a president can just consign church players to roach-ridden dust bins, rest assured.  

 

A remedial measure adopted by a president here, which the incumbent particularly and that of the flamboyant Fidel Ramos found efficacious, was the use of BCT negotiators. And the result was even more stunningly successful whenever a BCT negotiator was a former comrade of the Left. Many senior-level officials since the 1990s yet, the rank going to as high as cabinet level, were former ‘nat-dems’ including dozens of former CPP cadres no less. They may have left the underground, but they were still in good faith with their former movements which they never antagonized in any way.

 

As the presidential poll got nearer in 2004, the BCT negotiator then, who is personally known to this writer, got himself busy moving in and out of the country to see the NDF officials face-to-face. There was this particular official session between the NDF and GRP, which the BCT negotiator witnessed, and to the shock of the attendants the NDF officials pulled out pronto even before the session even started. But the rebel officials never left the venue, they simply cuddled at a particular nook and discussed their moves right there.

 

As usual, among the GRP panelists were around three (3) ‘soc-dems’ and one ‘opus dei’, and so the knee-jerk Pavlovian response of the rebels was to back off, as if they perceive some hostile man-eating Martians across the bargaining table. Seeing the urgency of a mediation response, the BCT official immediately admonished the GRP panelists to stay and wait while he moves on to massage the rebel side. He then went over to his former comrades, muscled enough courage and confidence to deal witRih them, and pronounced his lines that fruitful things can come out of the session if only the rebels returned to the table.

 

Well, voila! The rebel officials did return to the table, though without a hint of trust shown to the GRP panelists. The panel wasn’t exactly an entirely ‘socdem’-‘opus dei’ tandem, as the BCT official had pointed to the rebels, and so it was a matter of competent communication of their positions that would matter the most at that historic moment.

 

I was myself very busy then with the presidential campaign, being a consultant and spokesman for the incumbent exec who was running for another 6-year stint when the talks resumed. And I was so exuberantly elated at the rebels’ return to the table. The BCT negotiator, being my direct boss in the campaign (he was also among the top coordinators for the ‘parallel campaign machinery’ of GM Arroyo), then narrated the series of events which never came out of the news.

 

Not only did the rebels return to the ‘nego’ table (nego = negotiations, negotiating) as a result of the success of confidence-building spawned thru the BCT strategy. A week before the presidential poll, the top rebel honcho Jose Maria Sison officially announced that the NDF was supporting the GMA-led team in the elections. ‘Joma’ (as Sison was fondly nick-named) even released a formal memorandum to all CPP cadres and members, to openly vote for Arroyo in her presidential bid.

 

We now have new faces among the GRP panelists here, and the political winds have quite changed since 2004. The GRP-NDF war had resumed, peace talks continue but without verve and mutual trust. But BCT had more than amply proved to be a worthwhile strategy for peace negotiations. We should all look forward to its further application in many cases of conflict resolution—from rebellion-related to labor-related conflicts (settling strikes, lock-outs, barricades).

MANILA PEACE UPDATE: BACK-CHANNEL TALK WITH NDF

Bro. Erle Frayne D. Argonza

 

[Writ 01 May 2008, Quezon City, MetroManila. The author, a professor at the premier University of the Philippines, was a former consultant and senior official at the presidential palace.]

 

Let me share to you some notes about the efficacy of the back-channel strategy as applied to the Peace Talks. By Peace Talks I refer to the on-going negotiations between the GRP (Government of the Republic of the Philippines) and the rebel groups (National Democratic Front, Moro Islamic Liberation Front). For this briefer, I will focus on the GRP-NDF talks, the NDF being the Maoist movement led by the clandestine Communist Party of the Philippines (founded 1968).

 

The Maoist rebellion here began as soon as the New People’s Army or NPA, the military arm of the CPP, was formed. The Philippines than was predominantly agrarian, landlordism was the main stumbling block to industrial progress, the 1948-launced Import Substitution Industrialization was floundering badly, and mass poverty must have been reaching as much as past the 75% mark. With an agrarian population as base, it wasn’t difficult for the CPP-NPA to justify an armed struggle based on the Maoist strategy of encirclement: build rebel based first in the hinterlands where the enemy forces are weak, then gradually constrict the urban areas (cities, big towns) from the countryside.

 

Almost four (4) decades after the launching of the Maoist rebellion, nowhere is there any site of a victory by the Left rebels. Supposedly, the guerilla fronts have reached past the 3-digit level (160+ as of latest claims by the CPP), but those are largely spread out in rural hinterlands. RP’s population is now around 60% urban and only 40% rural, and urbanization is still spreading fast, mutating the rural landscapes into new mixed-use urban and suburban mini-cities.

 

It is now getting clearer that the Maoist rebellion here has been reduced to a Zapatista-sized rebellion, and its strategy of encirclement has become obviously intractable and nauseatingly archaic. Unless that it shifts in strategy from rural-based armed struggle to urban-based mass movement type, the new Zapatistas of Manila (CPP-NDF) may lose enormous mileage in their campaigns and legitimacy. A rising middle class here will never be able to identify with a movement that tends to diminish the importance of the ‘middle sectors’ in shaping the political wind, most specially in Asia to which Manila is now closely hued to (for many centuries the Philippines was alien to Asia and was more hued to its colonial masters in the West).

 

Often than not, the Peace Talks get stalled. This has been the history of negotiations here. But at least what is clear, as has been shown by the past negotiations with the military rebels and the Moro National Liberation Front or MNLF, is that the GRP talking point is not “surrender all of you or die!” but rather one of negotiated political settlement. It took much time for the GRP to admit to this new precept in peace talks, but state negotiators have to rather take this option as it had proved relatively successful as exemplified by the previous cases.

 

One strategy used by the GRP whenever peace talks get stalled is the ‘back-channel talk’. Often than not, the names of back-channel negotiators are not identified at all in public, or that the information is strictly confidential. Having once moved in the corridors of power as a consultant and later a senior state official at the presidential palace, my very own boss then was among them, and his experiences in the BCT (shortened ‘back-channel talk’) are my basis for assessing the efficacy of the strategy.

I found out, to my own dismay being a patriot who was impatient for results, that the peace talks get stalled every now and then not because of ‘insincerity’ of the ‘other party’ but rather due to the lack of trust by the rebels in the GRP negotiating panel’s composition. One must realize that here in Manila, the ‘nat-dems’ (the Maoist national democrats) had that historical animosities and antipathies with the ‘soc-dems’ (non-Maoist social democrats) who were indeed rabidly anti-communist as any observer would notice. Sadly, before the incumbent president GM Arroyo sat in power, the ‘soc-dems’ were already visible and influential in shaping the contours of peace talks including those held with the Muslim rebels.

 

In 2004, barely had the presidential election campaign commence when the peace talk stalled again. The usual bitter reason raised, as per information coming straight from the rebels to their contacts in the GRP other than the peace panel, was the ‘soc-dem’ presence in that (peace) panel (notably the intelligence top-gun Norberto Gonzales, and another ‘soc-dem’ cabinet member Ging Deles). Before that, in the 1990s, there was the complaint against the ‘opus dei’ negotiators. You see, the NDF can never really trust these negotiators who hinge their loyalty to their Vatican-led spin doctors.

 

The ‘nat-dem’ line is that the ‘soc-dem’ and their predecessors the ‘opus dei’ are clerico-fascist, are rabidly anti-communist and will never trust communists or Marxists of whatever rainbow hue they possess. The cleric-fascists supposedly opt for a total destruction of anything Marxist, much more of Maoists, and cannot be trusted in any way in peace negotiations. Of course, in the open mass media the typical line of the Maoists is that GRP is insincere, a line that the MILF rebels likewise echo.

 

That’s why it pays for any incoming president in particular to review the composition of the peace group that s/he inherits from a previous president. Well, the fact is that all the presidents from Corazon Aquino through Gloria Arroyo owe their victories in one way or another to the support of the ‘Jesuit mafia’ (to whom the ‘soc-dems’ owe allegiance) and the ‘opus dei’ (RP’s version of generalissimo Franco’s phalangists). So nary a president can just consign church players to roach-ridden dust bins, rest assured.  

 

A remedial measure adopted by a president here, which the incumbent particularly and that of the flamboyant Fidel Ramos found efficacious, was the use of BCT negotiators. And the result was even more stunningly successful whenever a BCT negotiator was a former comrade of the Left. Many senior-level officials since the 1990s yet, the rank going to as high as cabinet level, were former ‘nat-dems’ including dozens of former CPP cadres no less. They may have left the underground, but they were still in good faith with their former movements which they never antagonized in any way.

 

As the presidential poll got nearer in 2004, the BCT negotiator then, who is personally known to this writer, got himself busy moving in and out of the country to see the NDF officials face-to-face. There was this particular official session between the NDF and GRP, which the BCT negotiator witnessed, and to the shock of the attendants the NDF officials pulled out pronto even before the session even started. But the rebel officials never left the venue, they simply cuddled at a particular nook and discussed their moves right there.

 

As usual, among the GRP panelists were around three (3) ‘soc-dems’ and one ‘opus dei’, and so the knee-jerk Pavlovian response of the rebels was to back off, as if they perceive some hostile man-eating Martians across the bargaining table. Seeing the urgency of a mediation response, the BCT official immediately admonished the GRP panelists to stay and wait while he moves on to massage the rebel side. He then went over to his former comrades, muscled enough courage and confidence to deal witRih them, and pronounced his lines that fruitful things can come out of the session if only the rebels returned to the table.

 

Well, voila! The rebel officials did return to the table, though without a hint of trust shown to the GRP panelists. The panel wasn’t exactly an entirely ‘socdem’-‘opus dei’ tandem, as the BCT official had pointed to the rebels, and so it was a matter of competent communication of their positions that would matter the most at that historic moment.

 

I was myself very busy then with the presidential campaign, being a consultant and spokesman for the incumbent exec who was running for another 6-year stint when the talks resumed. And I was so exuberantly elated at the rebels’ return to the table. The BCT negotiator, being my direct boss in the campaign (he was also among the top coordinators for the ‘parallel campaign machinery’ of GM Arroyo), then narrated the series of events which never came out of the news.

 

Not only did the rebels return to the ‘nego’ table (nego = negotiations, negotiating) as a result of the success of confidence-building spawned thru the BCT strategy. A week before the presidential poll, the top rebel honcho Jose Maria Sison officially announced that the NDF was supporting the GMA-led team in the elections. ‘Joma’ (as Sison was fondly nick-named) even released a formal memorandum to all CPP cadres and members, to openly vote for Arroyo in her presidential bid.

 

We now have new faces among the GRP panelists here, and the political winds have quite changed since 2004. The GRP-NDF war had resumed, peace talks continue but without verve and mutual trust. But BCT had more than amply proved to be a worthwhile strategy for peace negotiations. We should all look forward to its further application in many cases of conflict resolution—from rebellion-related to labor-related conflicts (settling strikes, lock-outs, barricades).