| What this knot is all about? |
GPH undermines basic peace agreements, refuses to respect and comply with JASIG
Submitted by Kodao on Mon, 10/31/2011 - 19:32.
PRESS STATEMENT
By LUIS G. JALANDONI
Chairperson, NDFP Negotiating Panel
31 October 2011
**GPH undermines basic peace agreements, refuses to respect and comply
with JASIG**
In response to the statement of the Government of the Philippines
(GPH) Negotiating Panel, dated 21 October 2011 but sent out only on 24
October 2011, the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP)
Negotiating Panel states the following:
The release of the 13 NDFP Consultants and JASIG (Joint Agreement on
Safety and Immunity Guarantees) protected persons who are now in the
custody of the GPH is an obligation of the GPH in compliance with the
JASIG. It is not a precondition that is unilaterally imposed by the
NDFP. And neither is it a mere confidence-building measure that is
one-sidedly subject to the arbitrary exercise and abuse of discretion
of the GPH. The unlawful arrest, detention and prosecution of these
JASIG-protected persons are blatant violations of the JASIG, the
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International
Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), and the laws of the GPH itself. Their
immediate release is being demanded by the NDFP as a matter of legal
right, to uphold justice and the rule of law.
Encrypted photos are legitimate photos. Encryption is a legally and
universally accepted practice in business, political and diplomatic
relations designed to ensure security, privacy rights, trade,
diplomatic and state secrets. In consonance with this reality, the
position of the NDFP on the reconstitution of the list of NDFP
holders of Documents of Identification is quite appropriate. This has
been repeatedly stated to the GPH Panel Chair, but he purposely
ignores it and continues to insist on “hard photos”.
The failure to decrypt the encrypted photos is attributable to the
raids of the Dutch police in their futile attempt to file a trumped up
charge against Prof. Jose Maria Sison, the NDFP Chief Political
Consultant. The Arroyo regime colluded with the Dutch government and
the USA in fabricating the false criminal case. The Dutch police
corrupted and disabled the diskettes needed for decryption. The
trumped up charge was dismissed by the Dutch Court.
The NDFP Negotiating Panel has made the reasonable proposal to
reconstruct the JASIG list to take into account those holders who have
died or those who no longer have functions in the GPH-NDFP peace
negotiations. There is also a need to replace damaged or lost
documents of identification. The reconstruction is already being
undertaken and will be completed next month. The reconstructed list
with encrypted photos can be deposited in the designated safety
deposit box. This issue is easily resolvable and cannot be cited by
the GPH Negotiating Panel as a cause of delay in the peace
negotiations.
The refusal of the GPH to comply with its obligation is the immediate
major obstacle to the continuation of the peace negotiations.
**Undermining by the GPH of previous bilateral agreements:**
There is however a more serious threat to the GPH-NDFP peace
negotiations and to the twelve bilateral agreements. It is the
undermining of the past agreements by the GPH.
The Hague Joint Declaration
With Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Teresita Deles present,
the GPH Panel pretended to reaffirm the 12 bilateral agreements in
February 2011 but declared in its “qualifications” that “The
Hague Joint Declaration is only a means to an end and was never meant
to be a document of perpetual division between the parties.”
This claim of the GPH Panel contradicts the fact that subsequent
bilateral agreements affirmed The Hague Joint Declaration as the
foundation document. Moreover, in the Joint Statement of 9 March 2001,
it is stated: “The Parties uphold and affirm the validity and
binding character of the ten bilateral agreements (Annex A hereof)
that were entered into between them from 1 September 1992 to 7 August
1998 as the framework and foundation for the resumption of the peace
negotiations.”
The GPH Panel's citing of the Breukelen Joint Statement to question
The Hague Joint Declaration is a misreading of the document. It fails
to cite that at the very beginning of the document it is stipulated
“The GRP and the NDF reaffirmed their adherence to The Hague
Declaration.” Part II no. 8 of the aforesaid joint statement does
provide for further discussion “that will lead to agreements in
order to realize the objectives of The Hague Declaration.”
To cite this in order to undermine The Hague Joint Declaration and to
put under question such clear provisions as “The holding of peace
negotiations must be in accordance with mutually acceptable
principles, including national sovereignty, democracy and social
justice and no precondition shall be made to negate the inherent
character and purpose of the peace negotiations” is indeed seeking
to destroy the framework and foundation of the peace negotiations.
The JASIG and the CARHRIHL
Without comprehending the essence and full scope of the JASIG, the GPH
Panel Chair Alexander Padilla ignores the fact that releases of NDFP
Consultants have been carried out without the “further
verification” of opening the safety deposit box. He fails to see
that those who are consulted by NDFP Panelists are covered by JASIG
protection, while on the way to, during the consultation, or on the
way from the consultations, and those publicly known to have
participated or are participating in the peace negotiations. He does
not see the essence of JASIG as a reciprocal guarantee of safety to
all participants of both Parties in the peace negotiations. Moreover,
he wants issues concerning the JASIG and the CARHRIHL to be considered
unsubstantial, side-line issues to be put on a side-table discussion.
He considers compliance with JASIG and the CARHRIHL as a mere
confidence-building measure subject to the arbitrary exercise and
abuse of discretion of the GPH.
All peace advocates in the Philippines and abroad should take note of
these serious threats to the peace negotiations. Agreements on the
rest of the substantive agenda of the peace negotiations, namely,
social and economic reforms, political and constitutional reforms, and
end of hostilities and disposition of forces, have no chance of being
attained if The Hague Joint Declaration, the JASIG and CARHRIHL are
undermined and attacked by the GPH.
Such undermining is the strongest evidence that the Aquino regime,
Secretary Deles and GPH Panel Chair Padilla have no desire or
intention to engage in serious peace negotiations to address the roots
of the armed conflict. They merely want rumors of peace talks as part
of the counterinsurgency plan, cosmetically called Oplan Bayanihan,
following the US Government Counterinsurgency Guide.
By LUIS G. JALANDONI
Chairperson, NDFP Negotiating Panel
31 October 2011
**GPH undermines basic peace agreements, refuses to respect and comply
with JASIG**
In response to the statement of the Government of the Philippines
(GPH) Negotiating Panel, dated 21 October 2011 but sent out only on 24
October 2011, the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP)
Negotiating Panel states the following:
The release of the 13 NDFP Consultants and JASIG (Joint Agreement on
Safety and Immunity Guarantees) protected persons who are now in the
custody of the GPH is an obligation of the GPH in compliance with the
JASIG. It is not a precondition that is unilaterally imposed by the
NDFP. And neither is it a mere confidence-building measure that is
one-sidedly subject to the arbitrary exercise and abuse of discretion
of the GPH. The unlawful arrest, detention and prosecution of these
JASIG-protected persons are blatant violations of the JASIG, the
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International
Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL), and the laws of the GPH itself. Their
immediate release is being demanded by the NDFP as a matter of legal
right, to uphold justice and the rule of law.
Encrypted photos are legitimate photos. Encryption is a legally and
universally accepted practice in business, political and diplomatic
relations designed to ensure security, privacy rights, trade,
diplomatic and state secrets. In consonance with this reality, the
position of the NDFP on the reconstitution of the list of NDFP
holders of Documents of Identification is quite appropriate. This has
been repeatedly stated to the GPH Panel Chair, but he purposely
ignores it and continues to insist on “hard photos”.
The failure to decrypt the encrypted photos is attributable to the
raids of the Dutch police in their futile attempt to file a trumped up
charge against Prof. Jose Maria Sison, the NDFP Chief Political
Consultant. The Arroyo regime colluded with the Dutch government and
the USA in fabricating the false criminal case. The Dutch police
corrupted and disabled the diskettes needed for decryption. The
trumped up charge was dismissed by the Dutch Court.
The NDFP Negotiating Panel has made the reasonable proposal to
reconstruct the JASIG list to take into account those holders who have
died or those who no longer have functions in the GPH-NDFP peace
negotiations. There is also a need to replace damaged or lost
documents of identification. The reconstruction is already being
undertaken and will be completed next month. The reconstructed list
with encrypted photos can be deposited in the designated safety
deposit box. This issue is easily resolvable and cannot be cited by
the GPH Negotiating Panel as a cause of delay in the peace
negotiations.
The refusal of the GPH to comply with its obligation is the immediate
major obstacle to the continuation of the peace negotiations.
**Undermining by the GPH of previous bilateral agreements:**
There is however a more serious threat to the GPH-NDFP peace
negotiations and to the twelve bilateral agreements. It is the
undermining of the past agreements by the GPH.
The Hague Joint Declaration
With Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Teresita Deles present,
the GPH Panel pretended to reaffirm the 12 bilateral agreements in
February 2011 but declared in its “qualifications” that “The
Hague Joint Declaration is only a means to an end and was never meant
to be a document of perpetual division between the parties.”
This claim of the GPH Panel contradicts the fact that subsequent
bilateral agreements affirmed The Hague Joint Declaration as the
foundation document. Moreover, in the Joint Statement of 9 March 2001,
it is stated: “The Parties uphold and affirm the validity and
binding character of the ten bilateral agreements (Annex A hereof)
that were entered into between them from 1 September 1992 to 7 August
1998 as the framework and foundation for the resumption of the peace
negotiations.”
The GPH Panel's citing of the Breukelen Joint Statement to question
The Hague Joint Declaration is a misreading of the document. It fails
to cite that at the very beginning of the document it is stipulated
“The GRP and the NDF reaffirmed their adherence to The Hague
Declaration.” Part II no. 8 of the aforesaid joint statement does
provide for further discussion “that will lead to agreements in
order to realize the objectives of The Hague Declaration.”
To cite this in order to undermine The Hague Joint Declaration and to
put under question such clear provisions as “The holding of peace
negotiations must be in accordance with mutually acceptable
principles, including national sovereignty, democracy and social
justice and no precondition shall be made to negate the inherent
character and purpose of the peace negotiations” is indeed seeking
to destroy the framework and foundation of the peace negotiations.
The JASIG and the CARHRIHL
Without comprehending the essence and full scope of the JASIG, the GPH
Panel Chair Alexander Padilla ignores the fact that releases of NDFP
Consultants have been carried out without the “further
verification” of opening the safety deposit box. He fails to see
that those who are consulted by NDFP Panelists are covered by JASIG
protection, while on the way to, during the consultation, or on the
way from the consultations, and those publicly known to have
participated or are participating in the peace negotiations. He does
not see the essence of JASIG as a reciprocal guarantee of safety to
all participants of both Parties in the peace negotiations. Moreover,
he wants issues concerning the JASIG and the CARHRIHL to be considered
unsubstantial, side-line issues to be put on a side-table discussion.
He considers compliance with JASIG and the CARHRIHL as a mere
confidence-building measure subject to the arbitrary exercise and
abuse of discretion of the GPH.
All peace advocates in the Philippines and abroad should take note of
these serious threats to the peace negotiations. Agreements on the
rest of the substantive agenda of the peace negotiations, namely,
social and economic reforms, political and constitutional reforms, and
end of hostilities and disposition of forces, have no chance of being
attained if The Hague Joint Declaration, the JASIG and CARHRIHL are
undermined and attacked by the GPH.
Such undermining is the strongest evidence that the Aquino regime,
Secretary Deles and GPH Panel Chair Padilla have no desire or
intention to engage in serious peace negotiations to address the roots
of the armed conflict. They merely want rumors of peace talks as part
of the counterinsurgency plan, cosmetically called Oplan Bayanihan,
following the US Government Counterinsurgency Guide.
»
- Add new comment
- 253 reads
