Managing Negotiations: The Duterte Way (Part 2)

On Unresolved Conflicts with CPP-NPA-NDF vis-a-vis peace talks and negotiations. During election period, prior to his presidency, CPP-NPA-NDF Founder Joma Sison seemed to be endorsing Duterte’s candidacy as the latter was viewed to be the leader that can unite all people from different walks of life, that includes the people from the marginalized sectors and the lefts. However, during his term, the said perception was covered with several issues and controversies as ideologies of the organization were seemed not complemented by the government, requests from the lefts were remained abandoned, although several appointees were given key positions in the government, it still appears to be inadequate on the part of the lefts. Assaults and attacks by the NPA rebels to the government troops triggered Duterte to order retaliation. Hence, igniting the Duterte-dominated legislative body to draft and pass a bill tagging the rebel group as terrorist. Despite order to crash NPA, Duterte have showed willingness to renegotiate with the communist rebels. He always leaves space for peace negotiations and showed a sincere interest with the resumption of peace talks but the problem is, the reds are still attacking. He just cannot tolerate such actions. As his term nearing end, he considers the reopening of peace talks as the last and would serve as the key for the lasting peace between the parties. He said, both can co exist, find common ground and work together towards building a firm yet peaceful Philippine society, where there is no place for armed conflicts. Through Labor Secretary Bello, Duterte ordered to talk to Joma Sison and hopes that the CPP-NPA-NDF will accept its offer (Esguerra, 2019; Merez,2019).

Now, it is quite interesting to look into the details of this supposed peace talks. The terminated negotiation outlines several agenda from the negotiator, one of which is the Interim Peace Agreement (IPA) containing three accords, to wit: Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ARRD), National Industrialization and Economic Development (NIED), general amnesty for all political prisoners and coordinated unilateral ceasefire. All of which are part of Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms (CASER). CASER was materialized after four formal rounds of negotiations held in Europe and seven meetings held in the Philippines with the working committees. However, Presidential Advisers Esperon and Galvez tried to discredit CASER for reasons that it will turn the Philippines economic model to nationalist and socialist,haltering globalization and committing into something new might put the Philippines into aggravations. They added that, CASER might demobilize army in their proposed functions to civic works and that NPA is designated to play a key role in agrarian reform. They have concluded that, Signing and accepting the CASER might compromise the government’s integrity and sovereignty because there were no consultations done with the economic team, security forces, local agencies and local government units and with the people who have experienced decades-long armed conflicts. The worse case is, as claimed by Esperon and Galvez, CASER will send the country backward because it contradicts existing laws such as Indigenous People’s Right Act of 1997, eliminating the rights of the indigenous people to participate in the issues like agrarian reform (Ocampo, 2020).

To date, the government offered a one-on-one meeting in Manila to resolve this issue but Founder Jose Maria Sison commented that it is either a malicious scheme to put him in a lethal trap or a malicious maneuver to prevent peace negotiations upon rejection of the offer. This can be a very difficult conceived dilemma of Sison as he assumed that both options can produce undesirable outcomes. When he accepts the offer of Duterte, he might be put into jail as he step on the Philippine soil or worst, his life is in great danger. On the other hand, if he will reject the offer, it will appear that Sison is not willing to work together with the government, hence, a viable reason to ultimately terminate the reopening of peace talks. Sison have boldly reiterated that he is intelligent and more experienced than Duterte and he knows what is a trap. Interestingly, as part of the negotiation, Sison claimed that Duterte wants him to drop the legal protection he had under the Refugee Convention and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human rights, and when he sets foot in the Philippines, he can be anytime imposed with appropriate actions from the government. Sison also claimed that Duterte insisted him to violate his principles by submitting and surrendering himself to the Duterte government or regime as he specifically stated.

Now, weighing how these two parties play the negotiation game, Duterte appears to be the winner of this battle. We can assume, by looking at his actions with no elements of urgency, Duterte tends to indirectly participated in this negotiations as he authorized key officials, his cabinet members and Presidential Security advisers to be on the front line of this negotiations. Although he regarded this peace talks as very vital, assessing the way he deals it, he seems fine with both outcomes- resumption and termination of the peace talks. Hence, nothing can be lost from the government and it would be very impossible for the government side to enter into negotiations as it would not be a win-win solution to both parties. The government viewed it as very one-sided or onerous agreement.  On the other hand, although the CPP-NPA-NDF have a well defined BATNA and a set of settlement range (the CASER), it seems that they do not have enough leverage and techniques to convince the other party not unless they will revise again their agreements, lower it down and make it appealing to the government, and that is quite a challenge as revision may place them in the compromised position, where results are least acceptable (LAR). To sum this up, as per my analysis of this negotiation, I must say, there is no clear reason for this negotiations to prosper. In the first place, both or one of the parties has committed some mistakes in the negotiation principles, talking too much and listening too little, they are arguing instead of influencing and persuading. And lastly, the CPP-NPA-NDF’s best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA) is not just appealing, and the latter cannot afford to make a worse alternative to a negotiated agreement (WATNA). But for now, let us just wait and hope for the best.