IS THERE COMPELLING REASON TO TALK PEACE AGAIN?

We can rephrase the question by asking: Can we really afford an all-out war? By this question, we refer not only to the military capacities of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the New People’s Army (NPA) but also the capacities of local governments and communities to absorb the shocks.

Searching for a compelling reason to go back to the negotiating table may be difficult if the eyes don’t see.

If the principals of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) and the Philippine government ( GPH) peace panels really want to look and see, just open the box of narratives and facts from the past, blood trails, and heart breaks of the present and the still indeterminate repercussions on how the future looks like. What about compelling facts? According to Protection Cluster Philippines, 272,433 persons in Mindanao were displaced by 70 incidents of armed conflict from January to November 2016. The numbers suggest that 3,891 persons are displaced for every conflict incident. The NPA attack in Manay (Davao Oriental) on Feb. 1 (on the day that George “Ka Oris” Madlos announced the lifting of the CPP-NPA’s unilateral cease-fire by Feb. 10) caused the displacement of 3,000 families.

Two years earlier, the people of Manay formed part of 47,000 families affected by heavy rains and isolation due to floods, landslides, and destruction of bridges. Then Governor (currently, Congressional Representative) Corazon Malanyaon described the disaster as worse than typhoon Pablo in 2012.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in Mindanao alone, 55% of the 172,255 internally displaced people (IDP) are due to the armed conflict. The other half consists of internally displaced people as a result of typhoons Pablo and Sendong. It is not only government absorbing the humanitarian costs. The children of IDPs are involuntarily sacrificing their own futures, and the physical economy in rural areas is feeling the chronic abandonment of production.

On top of the displacement, there is already more than enough violence to worry about outside of an all-out war.

Data collected by the International Alert Southern and Eastern Mindanao Conflict Database (SEMCD) from 2011 to 2015 suggest that 15.5 cases of violence are committed each day in the Davao Region alone. Imagine an all-out war that multiplies the incidents depending on the kinetics of the AFP and rebel groups, not to mention the actions of terrorist groups, criminal gangs, and rogue elements of the Philippine National Police or the AFP.

Why not search inward, instead of issuing harsh words or drawing knives? We have heard the “fight and talk” argument and seen the results in half the time of almost half a century of armed struggle.

There was a reason for the euphoric Oslo Joint Statement in June 2016. Shortly before that was a big picture of peace through a window opened by President Rodrigo Duterte. It was a window presented to the national and international publics. It was a window not only for the NDFP and the GPH to peep into. It was everyone’s window.

In silent mode, the Oslo Joint Statement came out from calmer minds sorting facts and competing interests through hard talk. The debates were not concocted for the benefit of the media. They were candid, real, and addressed to each other.

There were independent compelling reasons for the unilateral cease- fires. Most important cadres of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) could get out on bail and participate in the talks. On the field, the CPP cadres could reconnect, move elements off- camp, expand outreach, and continue to tax business with a certain element of freedom.

The AFP, on the other hand, could worry less about red areas and concentrate its forces for the war on terror with the Abu Sayyaf, Maute Group, and other so-called ISIS bands.

The un-compelling reasons for CPPNPAs lifting of the unilateral cease-fire and the government’s reciprocal actions and subsequent decision to launch all-out war and break away from the talks bother the public. The citizens of this nation may be in the picture frame of the two parties when they finger-point who is to blame. However, they relegate the citizenry to being an audience and not being real and key stakeholders of the peace process.

There was a compelling reason why the NDFP and GPH agreed to include the interim cease-fire in the Oslo Joint Statement and, further on, create the Joint Ceasefire Committee. There was a reason for the AFP and the courts not to pose objection to the releases of cadres in the JASIG (Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees) list on bail. There is a reason for President Duterte to reject amnesty for the 400 plus political prisoners because legal logic dictates that conviction precedes amnesty. The only present justification to get the detainees out of prison is through the proper procedures of bail posting and hearing. But to make this happen, one does not need finger pointing and propaganda but real hard work in securing the bail requirements. Imagine the institutional repercussions if prison doors are simply and singularly opened for political prisoners to get out and leave out the other unjustly jailed just because they are not political.

It may be wishful thinking now to see rifles being lowered or church bells stopped from tolling for the next in line of the departed. But it is not wishful thinking that the NDFP and the GPH could make sense of what happened in Rome and thereafter.

The Oslo backchannel in June 2016 was calmer because the two parties were really talking. The first two rounds in Oslo and the third round in Rome were different. The two parties were not really talking to each other. They were speaking to their own constituencies.

What can be possibly done? Revive the special track mechanism and talk but away from the limelight.

If this succeeds, the succeeding formal rounds should be more candid, up close, and personal and shielded away from real time media and huge delegations of observers. This way, both parties would have less temptation to act like gladiators aiming to carry back trophies to their constituencies.

Some other ways of working can be done better. • Conflict sensitive communication. The logic of negotiations is to isolate the hard talk within the negotiating table instead of throwing pots, pans, and laundry through windows for public view. • Complete staff work. To break away

from misunderstanding and miscommunication about the release of political detainees is to recognize that the present feasibility is only through bail. This needs recognition of the need for paper work, bail money, bail posting, and bail hearing. The detainees need lawyers and bail money.

Let’s translate wishful thinking into a real possibility. The reasons are compelling to resume the talks.

From 2011 to 2015, an estimated 15.5 cases of violence are committed each day in the Davao Region alone. Imagine an all-out war that multiplies these incidents.

n