By FRANCIS TEJADA

There is an unprecedented public outrage over the red-tagging of several artists who have spoken out on social issues. Indeed, not since the time of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo have we seen such a lively debate and strong push-back against the labeling of groups and individuals as “communist-terrorist.”

Red-tagging has been explained as the labeling of persons as members or supporters of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army (CPP-NPA), which are underground groups engaged in armed struggle against the Duterte regime. They have been described as “communist-terrorist,” with officials already invoking the Anti-Terror Law even if no legal proceedings have been initiated. 

The term CT or “communist-terrorist” was a counter-insurgency term used by the US in the Vietnam War. But do you know who also used the term “communist-terrorist?” The Nazi Party of Hitler used the same term to spread fear and later justify their fascist rule. (Is there still any doubt the term had fascist roots?)

In order to have a better understanding of the debate around red-tagging, we have to address the elephant in the room. We have to come to terms with what “Red” means. Why do these Reds exist in the first place? How long have they been around, why are they still around? 

The term “Reds” here refers to the underground groups of the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People’s Army. They have been waging armed struggle since 1969. The CPP-NPA survived and grew in strength under the Marcos dictatorship. At the time of its founding, the NPA was just small and had only several high-powered firearms. They also survived and outlived the succeeding regimes after Marcos. Each administration would set a deadline to finish off the Reds but will always fail. 

Peace talks were initiated in 1986 then again in 1992, to try to find a political solution to the armed conflict. The peace talks were intended to come up with agreements that would address the social roots of the armed conflict en route to a settlement or final peace agreement. The issues are not as complicated as they seem—human rights, land reform, national industrialization, national sovereignty, genuine democracy. No, the peace talks do not intend to establish a communist state (an oxymoron for Marxists because under communism there is no longer any state). Many of the issues being discussed in the peace talks are in fact bourgeois-democratic demands, similar to the revolutions in Europe, but this time from the perspective of the working class.

The peace talks would bog down when the Philippine government terminates or scuttles it for different reasons. But at the end of the day, it all boils down to one thing—the peace talks and their results threaten the status quo. That is why land reform, national industrialization, national sovereignty, human rights, and democracy have become such dangerous concepts for the ruling elite. These will end the armed conflict but these will also take away the basis for foreign and elite rule in our country.

Red-tagging leveled up during the time of Arroyo when generals like Hermogenes Esperon endorsed the wholesale labeling of activists, journalists, church workers, and lawmakers as “enemies of the state.” This was the peak of extrajudicial killings of activists, prompting UN Special Rapporteur Philip Alston to observe that the red-tagging or labeling of activists as members of the armed group NPA was a major factor in the rise of the killings. The mass movement pushed back against these attacks and the frequency of the killings lessened. A case of rebellion that alleged the involvement of progressive party-list representatives as CPP members was filed in Makati Regional Trial Court but was eventually junked by the Supreme Court in a landmark decision.

The oft-repeated line of the state forces is that legal activist groups are recruiting NPA members. The examples they cite are activists who once belonged to legal organizations and are next seen in the mountains and engaged in armed struggle.

That there are students, workers, and other individuals joining the underground shouldn’t really come as a surprise. Such was the case during the ’70s at the height of Martial Law. Many of the best and brightest of UP joined the underground resistance to Martial Law. Many were arrested, jailed, tortured, and killed. Their names have been enshrined at the Bantayog ng mga Bayani in Quezon City. Yes, many of the names engraved in the Wall of Remembrance were heroes and martyrs who were part of the armed struggle against the dictatorship. They may have been considered “terrorists” by Marcos but they remain heroes to the anti-dictatorship forces.

Since the conditions of poverty and injustice remained unchanged even after the Marcos regime, and after the peace talks collapsed in 1987, the armed struggle persisted. Peace talks happened again in 1992 but the basic agreements to end the armed conflict were still not achieved. In short, the conditions for armed conflict remained.

There may be different reasons a person would join the armed struggle. In the countryside, it is acknowledged that landlessness and feudal oppression drive peasants to join the NPA. But why would activists, especially those in the legal arena, decide to join the revolutionary underground? 

There may be many reasons for them to join the NPA. One prominent activist from Davao, who was known to Duterte himself, went underground because of political persecution when trumped-up charges were filed against him. A general of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Raymundo Jarque, sought refuge with the National Democratic Front in the ’90s because he could not find justice in the system he had once served. Others join the underground because the space for dissent in the legal arena keeps shrinking. Others join the underground because of the belief that the ruling elite, in their desire to stay in power, will always use violence against the people.

Whatever their motivations may be, these are acknowledged to be personal choices and not organizational decisions. An organization cannot just force someone to choose a difficult life filled with dangers to personal safety and security. It is presumed that those who do decide to take the road less traveled, do so after serious thought and out of a great sense of selflessness. I have had schoolmates in UP who were martyred on the battlefield and I do not know them to be impulsive let alone stupid. I have the highest regard for my friends. I do not see their lives as waste. Their lives had deep meaning. They made the greatest sacrifice for their beliefs and principles, which is more than we can say for the many corrupt and abusive officials occupying high posts in government. 

Rather than condemn them and slander their memory, society should be asking why they left their relatively comfortable lives to live in remote rural communities and be with the poorest of the poor. Society should confront the reality that armed struggle persists because there is something fatally flawed in our system.

If we go back to the Wall of Remembrance in Quezon City, and if we take a look at our history, being Red isn’t necessarily bad. As the late lawyer Romeo Capulong once said, “The validity and correctness of the armed struggle is neither a legal nor moral issue, it is a political and historical one.” History will judge its correctness. Right now, we should take a long, hard look at why armed struggle persists in our country and why peace talks have always been scuttled by the militarists. We must call out those who seek to deny the root causes of the armed conflict by reducing everything to some shady conspiracy among activist “recruiters.” We must call out those who use red-tagging to intimidate and silence all forms of dissent. We must likewise demand peace based on justice and for the roots of the armed conflict to be finally addressed. ●

This article was first published on October 25, 2020, with the title “Reds.”