PRESS STATEMENTS

Interview Series of Prof. Jose Maria Sison on "Terrorist" Tag
by Sonny Mallari, Philippine Daily

The minimum for the GRP to start effective measures against U.S. "Terrorist" Listing of CPP, NPA, and NDFP consultant

Dear Sonny,

1. Unlike the GRP, which is in fact a puppet and beggar to the US and other imperialist governments, the NDFP is an alliance of revolutionary forces that is determined to undertake anything (especially armed revolution) in order to achieve the people's demand for national liberation and democracy. What the imperialists and their puppets wish is to blackmail and pressure the revolutionary forces with the "terrorist" listing and to cause their capitulation and destruction.

To start taking effective measures against the terrorist-listing, the GRP should join the NDFP in condemning the US usurpation of jurisdiction over Philippine events, US interference in Philippine affairs and US violation of the national sovereignty of the Filipino people. The postponement of the formal talks of the panels can go on indefinitely until the GRP learns to denounce US usurpation of jurisdiction over Philippine events, US interference in Philippine affairs and US violation pf national sovereignty of the Filipino people.

There is no point in resuming the formal talks in the peace negotiations while the GRP endorses the "terrorist" listing and in the process collaborates with the US in violating the following: national sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Filipino people over Phillippine affairs (The Hague Joint Declaration), safety and immunity guarantees (JASIG) and the fundamental rights of Filipinos and the Hernandez political offense doctrine (CARHRIHL).

2. By the way, you did not mention in your question about Biazon that he proposed the holding of GRP-NDFP peace negotiations in the Philippines in connection with safety and immunity guarantees about which he was ignorant as already provided for in the JASIG.

The NDFP has no problem about holding peace talks in the Philippines after the GRP recognizes the existence of the people's democratic government (PDG) and the territory of this revolutionary government of workers and peasants. If the GRP is willing, the NDFP can even host the talks in the territory of the people's democratic government and secure them with enough NPA forces. Learning from the experience in the ceasefire talks of 1986 and 1987, the NDFP will never negotiate in Manila under the surveillance and mercy of the AFP and PNP.

But why not define the territories of GRP and the PDG and hold talks in a neutral zone with the armies of both sides providing security to the respective negotiating panels? Will that be simpler and less expensive than meeting abroad under the third party auspices of the Norwegian government? Maybe, it shall take six months preparation for every meeting of the GRP and NDFP negotiating panels.

Regards,
Joma/Jose Maria Sison

sonny mallri wrote:

In an ABS-CBN newsbreak item, Bebot Bello called for the return of the NDF to the negotiating table to convince the United States and the European Union to

"They can do something about it, and the peace talks is a good place to start. We presume that the NDF's decision to resume the peace talks with the Philippine government last February is an indication of its desire to walk the ways of peace. The continuity of the NDF's cooperation in exploring measures to address economic, social and political reforms in pursuit of just and lasting peace will be the ultimate benchmark to determine the validity of its negative labeling by other nations."

In the said newsbreak item, Bello also appealed to the US, the EU, and the Dutch government to judge the Filipino communists through their participation in the peace process.

As chief political consultant of the NDF, how would you react to Bello’s call?

Channel 9 has reported that Senator Biazon is offering an “immunity from suit” to you and Ka Louie should you decide to return to the country and participate in the peace negotiation. Should GRP decided to adopt Biazon’s proposal, how would this influence the peace talks? Will you accept the offer? Well of course, this would all depend on how eager you are to return.

Reply: There is already the GRP-NDFP Joint Agreement on Safety and Immunity Guarantees (JASIG) which provides immunity guarantees to all persons duly-authorized by their respective panels to participate in the GRP-NDFP peace negotiations. JASIG is precisely one of the three agreements violated by the US "terrorist" listing. I explained this to you previously.

Barring any hitches, for sure lalaya na ang dalawang POWs bukas. As chief political consultant of the NDF, what would you like to say to the two Army soldiers and their families.

Reply: I wish the two prisoners of war and their families the best. May they enjoy their reunion and look forward to a better future for their country. The two POWs were supposed to be released several months ago but certain GRP and military officials delayed the issuance of the SOMO and SOPO. They were uniformed soldiers captured in the course of combat. Thus in captivity they were treated leniently in accordance with the NPA rules, the Guide for Establishing the People's Government, the Geneva Conventions and the CARHRIHL.

Since the release is expected to create a general atmosphere of renewed trust and confidence from both the NDF and the GRP, in your own view, paano ninyo titingnan ang pangyayari in the context of the stalled peace negotiation?

Reply: The GRP and NDFP should resolve the issue of "terrorist" listing in accordance with the The Hague Joint Dexclaration, JASIG and CARHRIHL. The US should not be allowed to interfere in Philippine affairs and should not impose its jurisdiction over events in the Philippines. The safety and immunity guarantees for those participating in the peace negotiations should be respected in accordance with the JASIG. The Hernandez political offense doctrine should be upheld in accordance with CARHRIHL. In a recent press statement, Speaker Jose de Venecia offered to help in resolving the problem posed by the renewal of the US "terrorist" listing. He is welcome to help. It would be fine to see him. He has a track record of helping the negotiations move forward.

Any particular message to President Macapagal-Arroyo regarding the POW release, and the stalled peace negotiation? Are there any low profile efforts from both parties to conduct back channel talks to break the impasse brought by the renewed US terrorist list?

Reply: GMA should see to it that the commitments of the GRP in Oslo I and II Joint Statements (February 14 and April 3, 2004, respectively) are fulfilled. These pertain to the effective measures against the "terrorist" listing, the release of political prisoners who have been detained in violation of the Hernandez political offense doctrine and the prompt indemnification of the victims of human rights violations under the Marcos regime. While the formal talks of the GRP and NDFP negotiating panels are postponed to give the GRP a chance to fulfill its obligations, the chairmen Silvestre Bello III and Luis Jalandoni can communicate with each other. But I think that Speaker de Venecia can help a lot if he is allowed by GMA to visit the panel in Utrecht.

August 15, 2004

Sonny Mallari wrote:

Ka Joma,

With the impending release of the two POWs based on "humanitarian grounds", as political consultant of the NDF, how would you want GRP to respond to the gesture aside from granting the NDF’s demand of similar freedom for political prisoners?

Reply: Aside from releasing the political prisoners, the GRP can make a public declaration: 1. that in accordance with The Hague Joint Declaration alleged acts of the CPP, NPA and the NDFP chief political consultant in the Philippines are beyond the jurisdiction of the US government, 2. that in accordance with JASIG the duly-authorized persons in the peace negotiations are protected by safety and immunity guarantees and 3. that in accordance with CARHRIHL anyone chargeable for rebellion is not a common criminal or terrorist under the Hernandez political offense doctrine. With regard to the indemnification of the victims of HR violations under the Marcos regime, the GRP must comply with its obligation to take executive and legislative actions to effect prompt and proper indemnification. It made such promises in Oslo I and II Joint Statements.

If after the release of the POW, pinalaya din ng GRP ang ilang political prisoners (the "Mamburao 6" and the alleged killers of US Army officer James Rowe), will this change the perspective of the stalled peace negotiation?

Reply: Don't be too sure about the release of political prisoners who have been detained on false charges of common crimes and in violation of the Hernandez political offense doctine. The GRP is notorious for promising such releases and reneging on the promise. The issue of "terrorist" listing by the US can be easily resolved as I have indicated above. But the GRP officials prefer to make stupid statements like the US has the sovereign right to interfere in Philippine affairs and to violate the national sovereignty and jurisdiction of the Filipino people.

The GRP is so bankrupt morally and financially that it cannot be trusted with the fund to indemnify the victims of HR violations under the Marcos regime, especially now that the money has been shifted to the General Fund of the GRP.

Thanks,
Sonny

Is there any correlation between the resurgence of violence against media practitioner and the adamant stance of the GRP not to lift a finger on US terrorist tag on the revolutionary movement and yourself?

Should the GRP still choose not exert any effort to help de-list the CPP-NPA and yourself from the US terrorist list, what is the next option for the revolutionary movement? From what I barely heard from you in the ANC television interview…"babalik naman sa all out civil war?"