Defending the NDFP�s Revolutionary Integrity in the Peace Talks
The Government of the Republic of the Philippines� (GRP) special agenda in engaging in the peace talks is clear: It wants to trick the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) into surrendering.
This is contrary to the objective of the NDFP. The NDFP engages in the peace process to advance the interests of the masses and resolve the fundamental problems of the people as the key to the attainment of just and lasting peace. Corollary to this, the revolutionary movement must defend and uphold its political integrity and thus, defend and uphold the people�s fundamental right to wage revolution against exploitation and oppression; and nurture and advance further the victories gained in 30 years of painstaking struggle. While firmly maintaining its revolutionary integrity, the NDFP continues to fight in the arena of peace negotiations to obtain real and significant concessions favorable to the people.
In the process of negotiations, the GRP�s duplicity is thoroughly manifested and exposed while the sincerity of the national-democratic movement becomes more evident.
GRP�s constitutional framework
It is the practice of the ruling reactionary puppets to use the peace talks to serve their tactical and political needs.
Being a "minority president", Fidel Ramos aggressively used the talks to deodorize his image, broaden his area of political maneuver and strengthen his control over the center of state power. Meanwhile, the Estrada regime sought room for maneuver by opening opportunities for the peace talks after being confronted with accumulated economic and financial problems and besieged by criticisms for its decision to bestow honors on Marcos.
Having no sensible agenda for the peace talks, the current and two previous puppet regimes frequently shift towards asserting crudely the GRP's reactionary constitution and demanding just as crudely that the NDFP submit to it. The NDFP, however, has firmly defended its integrity as revolutionary force with its own constitution and program.
When the principals of both parties signed the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, elements within the GRP who are opposed to the peace talks again insisted on using the GRP constitutional framework. Ambassador Howard Dee has been the most zealous in asserting the use of the GRP constitution as framework in continuing the peace negotiations and implementing the Agreement. Meanwhile, Exec. Sec. Ronaldo Zamora has announced that the GRP will not honor its obligations under the Agreement unless the peace negotiations are resumed in accordance with the unilateral conditions set by the GRP.
In the last week of October, Sen. Franklin Drilon, one of the newly appointed members of the GRP panel, committed an even more brazen act of sabotage. Leading a team that headed for The Netherlands, he told the NDFP that the GRP could not implement Article 4 Part III and Article 6 Part IV of the Agreement. These sections provide for the thorough investigation and trial of violators of human rights and international humanitarian law. The provisions also demand that victims of such violations be indemnified.
The GRP refused to have the NDFP as co-implementor of these articles. It was opposed to the possibility that the NDFP would put to trial Armed Forces of the Philippines' personnel who may be captured by the New People's Army.
Defending revolutionary integrity
The GRP�s insistence on the use of its constitution as framework for the talks is in utter disregard of previous agreements ratified by both parties.
The Hague Joint Declaration of 1992 had long resolved this issue. The Declaration stipulates that only mutually acceptable principles shall guide the peace talks. The imposition of the GRP�s constitution as framework for the talks violates the Joint Declaration. It assumes that both the GRP and NDFP have constitutions that are upheld in their respective territories.
Such arm-twisting by the GRP�s is also contrary to the inherent character and objective of the peace negotiations.
Meanwhile, there are many provisions in the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law that clearly counter the GRP's arguments. These include:
Art. 3, Part II: "The Parties shall uphold, protect and promote the full scope of human rights, including civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. In complying with such obligations, due consideration shall be accorded to the respective political principles and circumstances of the Parties."
Art. 1, Part IV: "In the exercise of their inherent rights, the Parties to the armed conflict shall adhere to and be bound by the generally accepted principles and standards of international humanitarian law."
Art. 1, Part VI: "The Parties shall continue to assume separate duties and responsibilities for upholding, protecting and promoting human rights and the principles of international humanitarian law in accordance with their respective political principles, organizations and circumstances until they shall have reached final resolution of the armed conflict."
Art. 3, Part VI: "...Any reference to the treaties signed by the GRP and to its laws and legal processes in this Agreement shall not in any manner prejudice the political and organizational integrity of the NDFP."
Both parties adopted these provisions after long, complicated and difficult negotiations. The provisions enhance the revolutionary integrity of the NDFP that continues to rely on the armed struggle of the masses of the people.
As the GRP attempts to entrap the NDFP into capitulating through the peace talks, the revolutionary movement's correct handling of the negotiations becomes more evident. The revolutionary forces gain further victories in upholding the correctness of armed struggle as the principal form of struggle that shall resolve the socio-economic crisis of Philippine society. Accordingly, only within the frame of firmly defending their revolutionary integrity can the revolutionary forces take hold of the peace negotiations as an added arena in the defense of the basic rights and welfare of the masses of the people.
With or without peace talks, the Party and the entire revolutionary movement maintain their revolutionary integrity by persevering in advancing the revolution that paves the way for the the attainment of a just and genuine peace for the people.
| 
