Stand-down review set

More time needed to look at vague proposal

A review of the vague stand-down agreement which was the brainchild of Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) founding chairman Jose Maria Sison was among the issues that triggered the suspension of the resumption of the peace negotiations, AFP chief of staff Gen. Carlito Galvez said yesterday.

Government and communist group negotiators agreed on the stand-down agreement during the backchannel talks in Utrecht, The Netherlands last June 8.

The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) is evaluating provisions of the “stand down” agreement between the government of the Philippines (GPH) and National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) peace panels, Galvez said.

“We are evaluating the provisions…that’s why I think the President is looking at more time to see the provisions,” Galvez said.

The President has called off the resumption of formal peace talks between the GPH and NDFP peace panels scheduled June 28.

Mr. Duterte also wanted more public consultations before the formal talks resume.

The NDFP also revealed the contents of the “Agreement on a Stand-down for the Resumption of the Formal Peace Talks” have become a sticking point in the planned resumption of the talks.

A portion of the two-page document stated that “stand-down shall be understood to mean temporary cessation of hostilities in which the contending armed units and personnel of the parties stay where they are (as is, where is), take

active defense mode, and shall not commit any offensive action or operation against combatants and civilians.”

“Stand-down shall be understood to mean temporary cessation of hostilities”.

It added the stand-down shall be declared and announced simultaneously by both parties one week before the agreed date of the resumption of the formal talks.

Along with the stand-down agreement were drafts of the interim peace agreement and a general amnesty declaration on all political prisoners which the NDFP has demanded as condition to the signing of the peace deal.

The AFP chief supported the President’s move for more consultations to ensure that the outcome of the negotiations is acceptable to the public.

“They have more substantial issues to consult on the ground,” Galvez said.

Galvez, however, was mum on the discussions in Malacanang last Wednesday before the President announced the postponement.

“I will not divulge anything,” he stressed.

The stand-down agreement was supposed to take effect June 21 to pave the way for the smooth resumption of the talks. It will eventually lead to a bilateral ceasefire based on the deal.

Earlier, Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana had called for the clear definition of the term “stand down,” noting the New People’s Army (NPA), the armed wing of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), has the penchant for taking advantage of a ceasefire.

Lorenzana expressed fears the NPA would exploit the stand-down agreement to intensify recruitment and regain control of barangays already cleared by the government from communist influence.

Galvez also stressed it should be both sides, meaning AFP and the NPA that will abide by the agreement instead of only the military.

Chairman of the government negotiating team Labor Secretary Silvestre Bello said aside from public consultations, the draft peace agreement will also be presented to Congress.

Bello described the stand-down agreement as a “lower form” of ceasefire.

“After more than 30 peace negotiations, after five presidencies, we have drafted a final draft of an interim peace agreement. Although we call it an interim peace agreement, this will be the final peace agreement that we have been dreaming of,” he said.

“Aside from the interim peace agreement, we are also discussing a Comprehensive Agreement on Socio-Economic Reforms which is a component of the interim peace agreement. The Coordinated Unilateral Ceasefire has become the stand-down. That would be included in the interim peace agreement,” he added.

Bello said the government would not want to sign the interim peace agreement into a final one without knowing the position of lawmakers and other stakeholders.