Interview with Prof. Jose Maria Sison (founder of the Communist Party of the Philippines)

INTERVIEW WITH PROF. JOSE MARIA SISON
October 24, 2002
MIM Notes correspondent
From the Maoist Internationalist Movement

Philippine Professor Jose Maria Sison has a long history of activism on behalf of the exploited and oppressed and against U.$. imperialism. He helped found the Kabataan Makabayan (Patriotic Youth) in 1964 and led some of the first protests against Amerikan intervention in Vietnam—of particular relevance as the United $tates used the Philippines as a staging area for aggression in Southeast Asia.

He went on to found the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) on December 26, 1968, the New People's Army (NPA) on March 29, 1969 and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) on April 24, 1973. He was captured by the Marcos fascist regime on November 10, 1977 and stayed in prison until he was released on March 5, l986 soon after the fall of Marcos.

He rejoined the faculty of the University of the Philippines. Then, he left for abroad for a global university lecture tour from September 1, 1986 to 1988. He applied for political asylum in The Netherlands on October 18, 1988 after the Aquino regime canceled his Philippine passport.

The U.$. government declared him a "terrorist" on 12 August 2002 and other governments to freeze his assets. The Government of The Netherlands followed suit the next day.

A MIM Notes correspondent conducted the following interview with Philippine Professor Jose Maria Sison via telephone on October 24, 2002.


MN: We're honored now to be joined by Comrade Sison. Thank you for your time.

JMS: You're welcome. Thank you.

MN: Could you comment on this charge of terrorism against you, and why now?

JMS: It is a silly charge, although it's a very cruel kind of charge because of the consequences that can be seen easily by everyone. This term, "terrorism," has been swung around to hit so many people and so many organizations fighting for national liberation, for democracy, and for socialism. So you have these high-minded organizations in the service of the people being targeted. This "terrorism" was originally supposed to be a term for getting back at those who did real terrorist acts on September 11th, 2001. But these acts were done supposedly by a definite group that was organized by people originally trained by the U.S. for terrorism. Now, we are wondering why this series of decisions and acts in the U.S., in the UN, and in some European governments are now being used against forces far beyond, let us say al-Qaeda if that was the main suspect. So many people now think: maybe the United States created the incident because it's playing for higher stakes. The United States did something again like the blowing up of the battleship Maine, and the killing of hundreds of sailors on that battleship just so the United States would get all the colonies of Spain.

MN: So, what would you consider a consistent definition of terrorism?

JMS: Terrorism is harming, and destroying the lives and properties of ordinary people under any condition. Terrorism would mean the violation of human rights. And in times of war, terrorism would mean directing the harm principally towards the civilian population, and harming combatants that are already incapacitated. So there are the Geneva Conventions, and the protocols with regards to conditions of war, and of course, there are the principles, conventions and standards governing human rights. Now, it's bad that the United States is using the term "terrorism" as a kind of substitute for the old term "subversion." It's been used as a catch-all and open-ended term for waging wars of aggression against countries that the United States considers rogues or disobedient to American power, and also for repressing the American people and the people of the whole world. You see, the USA PATRIOT Act is something fascistic, something repressive even to the American people. You have as first victims the immigrants, and people who look like Arabs and who belong to Islamic churches. But I suppose with the deterioration of the legal standards, with the outright violation of civil rights—I think fascism is creeping very speedily and it is spreading quite speedily. Not only in the United States but also abroad, because the United States internationalizes this "anti-terrorism" pretext which is in fact the terrorism or super-terrorism of the U.S.
MN: I guess to sort of follow up on that, we are wondering if the United $tates is applying its definition of "terrorism" consistently. For example in Philippines, both the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the NDFP have signed this Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) which accords people who are incapacitated combatants certain rights. We have seen consistently that the Armed Forces of the Philippines violate this agreement as opposed to the NPA which has upheld it—so maybe you can talk about how the U.$. government is applying this hypocritically.

JMS: Well, the United States together with its puppet regimes is quite consistent in using imperialist terrorism as well as state terrorism in destroying those they consider obstacles to American power in various respects. What's emerging is, you know, the United States covers up its super-terrorism, killing millions of civilians during wars of aggression and hundreds of thousands of people so easily through operations of repressive regimes like those of Marcos and Suharto. So this terrorism of the United States is being pushed. Kissinger and all the voices around Bush, like Rumsfield, Wolfowitz and so on—these guys are completely cynical. They think that with the United States being supposedly the sole superpower, the United States can do anything to use force, especially hi-tech military power and grab everything, especially oil, since this is considered the lifeblood of the global economy. So any country asserting its independence or any force or any organization of the people that stands up for national independence and democracy would be the target for what is in fact the war of terrorism by the U.S. It pretends to be carrying out a war on terrorism, but it is actually a war of terrorism that the US under the Bush administration is carrying out.

MN: I'd like to switch gears a little bit for a second and talk about the specific charges against you. According to the latest reports that we have the Dutch government has frozen your bank account and cancelled subsidies for food, housing, health insurance and so on. Have any other official or unofficial punitive measures been taken against you?

JMS: Well there are the great consequences of the decision taken by the United States on August the 9th. That is the decision of about Colin Powell designating the Communist Party of the Philippines and the New People's Army as foreign terrorist organizations. And the August the 12th decision of the U.S. Treasury Department targeting the CPP, NPA and myself as objects for the seizure of and or freeze of assets. So these decisions of the United States have been transported by the Dutch government and applied on me here so I suffer great consequences. Namely the violations of my civil rights. I am criminalized as a terrorist without due process. I am defamed and I am the object of official incitement to public hatred. So, my life is threatened and I suffer material and moral damages. I am supposed to be prevented from moving around from one country to another. And I am told that I cannot participate in the peace negotiations if there would be any between the Manila government and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines.

And you see, the withdrawal of the benefits, social benefits, is so cruel and so stupid, that it's so clear that my basic human right to life is violated by the withdrawal of these benefits. So the result is that there has been a public outrage here against this insanity done by, committed by the Dutch government so these benefits have been returned. But still, cruelly and stupidly, the Dutch government would like to return these benefits, which I got according to previous law; I'm supposed to get them back within the framework of the sanction regulation against terrorism. So they're really clever and cruel. They would like to give back those things unjustly taken away and more unjustly I am made to take them back within the sanction regulation against terrorism. But I am not getting them back unless there is a de-listing, a removal of my name from the so-called terrorist list.

That is the reason why we are now going to the civil court. To fight for my civil rights and I am ready to go up to the level of the Judicial Branch of the Council of State within The Netherlands and up to the European Court of Human Rights if necessary. But all these things that can go through the judicial process are nothing compared to other threats as well as acts that make those threats appear to be very credible. So I am told by high officials of the Philippine government, the Manila government, that the United States is ready to request for my extradition under the U.S.-Dutch extradition treaty. So the threat is for me to be placed in Guantánamo or Guam and or some U.S. military base and I would not be given access to a counsel of choice.

There are also reports that since Bush has already lifted the ban on the assassination of leaders that oppose U.S. interest, I am supposed to be the target of covert CIA operations. And so I have been told of some officials of the Manila government who tell me in a threatening way that the United States, particularly the CIA can go so far as to have me killed by CIA agents or CIA assets.
MN: You've also said that the charges and these threats against you are meant to intimidate all the panelists, consultants and supporters of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines Negotiation Panel. Can you comment on any concrete intimidations?

JMS: Yes, that is correct. The panelists, consultants, staffers and supporters of the negotiation panel of the National Democratic Front are being intimidated, are being threatened. And so the biggest ultra-conservative paper here in The Netherlands, the Telegraph, claiming that there are 30 terrorists in Utrecht where the office of the National Democratic Front Negotiating Panel is. So you know this black propaganda or this vilification, slander is going on. So a climate of fear is being imposed on the NDFP and discharged with the bilateral objective of the Manila government and the U.S. to shakedown the peace negotiations and push the NDFP towards capitulation. But then, the U.S. knows very well that the home office of the National Democratic Front, the National Council of the National Democratic Front of the Philippines would not allow itself to be represented by a panel that is being placed under duress. And so it is so easy for the leadership of the NDFP to dis-authorize the panel abroad and stop negotiating with the Manila government. And probably that's exactly what the United States wants. You see the U.S. has its own unilateral objective. It doesn't care where the peace negotiations would go. Good for the U.S. and Macapagal-Arroyo if there is capitulation. But if there is capitulation and collapse that would also serve the U.S. interests in barging into the Philippines with military forces probably taking back basing rights or reestablishing military bases in the Philippines. The United States right now is interested in tightening its control over the Philippines in order to control even more the whole of Southeast Asia. And, of course, Southeast Asia is a stance on the path of rapid deployment forces and the trading fleets of the U.S. in Asia. This area, this region where the Philippines is has something to do with the protection of American power up to the Middle East.

MN: Getting back to peace negotiations really quickly, reading the so-called mainstream press here in the States, like The New York Times or the Associated Press, it makes it sound as if the National Democratic Front of the Philippines broke off the negotiations in the summer of 2001. And furthermore that despite the so-called "all-out war" on the NPA by the Macapagal-Arroyo regime, they're actually interested in talking peace through "back channels." So maybe you could talk about what the situation of the peace negotiations is.

JMS: It's completely untrue that the National Democratic Front of the Philippines broke off the negotiations. It has been the National Democratic Front of the Philippines eager to have the peace negotiations resumed in accordance with The Hague Joint Declaration, which laid down the framework for peace negotiations in a neutral venue abroad, in Europe particularly. And it has been the Macapagal regime that is responsible for putting on recess the negotiations indefinitely, and subsequently Macapagal declared the suspension of the negotiations. As late as August 4 Macapagal declared all-out war against the revolutionary forces and people. Probably she was encouraged to do that silly thing by the visit of Colin Powell on August 2nd and 3rd.

But you know, they keep on talking. The Manila government officials keep on talking about "back-channeling." You know the purpose of "back-channeling" is to push the NDF toward a so-called final peace agreement of a few pages, which practically states the terms of capitulation. And the only thing that the Manila government has is to make threats—threats of the use of American power against the revolutionary movement. That's the only thing they have. It's completely an airy thing; it's not a handle at all.

It's so different from Guatemala UNRG, getting so much funds for NGOs, and then later on the Guatemalan NGOs would be threatened with the termination of funds so that UNRG would finally go to the table and sign the document of capitulation. That's not the case with the National Democratic Front of the Philippines. The NDF has been careful at avoiding anything that would compromise its revolutionary principles.

The NDF is eager to have the resumption of the peace negotiations so that the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) can be implemented. You know the existence and implementation of this agreement would demonstrate very clearly that the NDFP and all the revolutionary forces it represents are not at all terrorists. They go by the international standards of human rights and humanitarian conduct in time of war. And the National Democratic Front of the Philippines would also like to present its views on the current social and economic crisis by having negotiations with the Manila government on the possibility of social and economic reforms. It has been the NDF that has demonstrated to the entire Filipino people that it takes a reasonable and just position and tries to do everything possible to look for ways of bringing about benefits to the Filipino people.

MN: To follow up on that, and to do a little bit of a discussion of the principles of the NDFP—we know that the NPA, which is a member organization of the NDFP, is engaged in protracted people's war. Yet the Macapagal-Arroyo regime holds that up as proof that they're terrorists. Similarly, the Communist Party of Nepal has been charged with being terrorists when the government of Nepal goes abroad to the United States or Britain, to ask for money as part of the war on terrorism. So perhaps you could talk briefly about the principles behind protracted people's war.

JMS: The problem with imperialists and their counterrevolutionary puppets is that they do not see their terrorism, and so they blame, they label others as terrorists. The imperialists and the puppets do not talk about state terrorism.

Now, there is a two-sided civil war in the Philippines, and the United States would like to join that, and convert the civil war into a war of aggression, in which case they are actually goading the Filipino people to prepare for a national war of liberation against that war of aggression that seems to be coming to the Philippines. Well anyway, if we look closely at the text of these counterrevolutionaries, when they boast of how many offensives they undertook—let's also take into account that they undertake these offensives blindly, because they have no popular support. They boast of superior weapons that they can use against the revolutionary forces and the people. Actually, they kill so many times more people, and it is their characteristic to kill even people who have nothing to do with the revolutionary movement. On their suspicion, they would kill ordinary people.

In the case of the revolutionary movement, or the New People's Army in particular, I would assume that they can hit in a more precise way, because they come from the bosom of the people. The reactionaries do not know where they are, and so the NPA can avail of what you call the economy of force against the worst of their enemy. So I suppose that I think that you can look at the records. The New People's Army would kill so few of those well-proven human-rights violators and plunderers, and including you know the worst of criminals, the most anti-social elements who trade in drugs and so on, to destroy the health of the youth. And on the other hand, you have the military and police forces, as well as deputized private armies and vigilante groups fighting in the interests of the big compradors and landlords and operating criminal syndicates engaged in drugs and gambling and smuggling and so on and so forth. These are the abominable armed elements perpetrating terror against the broad masses of the people in the Philippines. The Philippines is in trouble because of the combination of armed force in the service of exploitative classes and at the same time you have the armed force on the side of the ruling system, or whichever is the ruling clique, and they stand for the most anti-social types of criminality in the country.

MN: We're starting to see even here in the United States, the reactionaries casting a broad net, so after September 11 we saw thousands of people thrown in jail, and prison, without access to lawyers, on the mere fact that they were Muslim, or came from a country in the Middle East. Similarly some of the round-ups that they're doing in Afghanistan, there are reports coming out now where the Amerikans are just going into villages, and if somebody has a certain poster on their wall, they arrest them, and good lord knows what else happens to them. So perhaps moving on into more contemporary burning questions in the world at large—as I'm sure you're aware, George Bush claims that the United States must go to war with Iraq in order to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. What do you think of this claim, and what do you think is the best thing that can be done to eliminate weapons of mass destruction?

JMS: Well, Bush appears dumb. Maybe he's so greedy on behalf of the ruling clique much interested in oil and military production. He appears dumb because it is so clear to the people of the world that Saddam doesn't have those "weapons of mass destruction." The U.S. authorities said so many times before that they had degraded the ability of Saddam even to think about making those weapons of mass destruction. Scott Ritter, the American inspector, who has been telling the world that previous suspected stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction are no longer there. And it's so clear, why doesn't the U.S. try to make war on India and Pakistan? They have nuclear weapons. The way the United States tries to threaten Iraq and North Korea for supposedly making weapons, why is it that the United States is actually instructing Pakistan and India in the principle of preemptive strike? Maybe Bush is trying to inspire these two quarrelling states to take to heart the principle of preemptive strike. There's something crazy about this preemptive strike that also makes the U.S. and Bush in particular appear dumb. Because this is a barbaric principle, trying to kill someone first, on mere suspicion, that's barbarism at work.

In neo-liberal globalization, you have the law of the jungle, barbarism in the market. Now you have barbarism in terms of the use of force. So the United States is being brought to hell by Bush himself, and his spreading provocations, but so far those who have committed acts of terror against civilians in the U.S. are former trainees of the U.S., so we have the same mentality at work. It's a good thing that revolutionaries don't think that way, the kill-kill mentality of the U.S. Marines. That kind of mentality does not exist with revolutionaries. But Bush would like to use these threats of war against states that it cannot dictate upon to deliver the natural riches to the U.S. So that's the misfortune of Iraq, for having so much oil, for having been so weakened militarily, that the United States thinks it can just pick up the spoils from this country that has been under bombing attacks for more than a decade.

MN: This is good stuff, so we have to apologize if we're bouncing around with the questions here. We have a general question to the situation in the Philippines now, with a particular focus on the role of the United $tates. We know that the Philippines is still semi-feudal, where the majority of Filipinos live in the countryside, have to pay rent to a landlord, and suffer greatly from this kind of feudal oppression. To what extent is the Unite $tates directly involved in that sort of feudal oppression, and to what extent is that just a matter of choosing a local reactionary class with whom they can ally?

JMS: Well, the way that the Philippines has stagnated at the semi-feudal level of economy can be accounted for in a two-sided way. You have a well-developed landlord class, you have a country of rich natural resource, and so the landlords can just live off the land. Even if they send their children to take MBA in Harvard, they think, "it's no risk, it's no risk." It should be good for them just to collect land rent, no? So, you know, even in relatively mechanized farms, which is a small proportion of Philippine agriculture, the landlords still exact imputed land rent, even if it appears they draw profits from the mechanized farms.

Now, from the side of the U.S., they don't see any assertiveness on the part of any national bourgeois who would be interested in industrialization. And neither has the U.S. seen any need for "frontlining" by the Philippines against the industrializing examples of north Korea and China in the ‘60’s and part of the ‘70’s. So the U.S. decided to allow Taiwan and south Korea to do the "frontlining."

Now, also, before all those considerations about "frontliners," in offering counter-examples to industrialization in the socialist countries before, the United States has of course the continuing drive to dump surplus capital and surplus goods. Those two surpluses are interrelated. If the surplus capital can be brought to a country by circulating surplus goods, then that's fine. If the surplus capital can go in to a country without circulating the goods, because of the sheer borrowing by the deficit-ridden puppet regimes, then that's also fine. And you have the stagnation of the client economy. Sometimes a client economy can get a certain degree of industrialization, if, for instance, there is a need for "frontlining" in the anti-communist crusade as I have already explained, or if there is a national bourgeois that becomes assertive. But really, this assertiveness that would be given concessions by the U.S. would still be due to anti-communism. In Brazil, some amount of industries was put in, just to be able to preempt the communists.

MN: OK, I think we'll round it up with a final question, and that is, what is it that we can do here, how can we get involved, in protecting and defending not only your democratic rights and those of supporters of the NDFP, but also those of people who just want to speak out against U.$. aggression?

JMS: I think the most important thing is to spread the information about my plight, about the violation of my rights. The most important thing that should come out of the information campaign will be the generation of moral and political support. Because I will have to fight so many legal battles and these could become expensive, so I suppose that people should be encouraged—despite the fact that they could be considered also terrorists, because they would be assisting someone called a terrorist—I think people should try to contribute to the Legal Defense Fund.

You see, in Sweden, some three Swedish citizens of foreign origin were accused of being terrorists, and the people stood up for them, that is the Swedish people stood up for them, and each of them contributed 10 Kroners, with the declaration of defiance that they are also so-called "terrorists," in quotes, in giving the contribution for the subsistence and defense for those three Swedish citizens listed as "terrorists." So two of them have been de-listed because of the strong popular support.

So there are many kinds of support and it depends on so many types of sources of political support, so many types of people. People from all walks of life could be aroused and mobilized to help in the campaign to defend me.

But not so much me really, I am just the specific target now, I think there are more people being targeted. So many people have assured me that I can be easily defended and that the United States are making a big mistake by trying to make me appear like a demon, but that big shots are willing to be on my side, as well as fellow professionals, the most dignified people in upper places, even from bourgeois society, will take my side.

But there would be people that are not in such an advantageous position as I am. I don't claim that I am in such an advantageous position, but there are people, relatively speaking, who could be more easily targeted. And if my fight is not well fought, then the persecution, the employment of imperialist terrorism on other people will become easier. So I would call on my friends, and all the people of the world, that we should stand together and to try to prevent the scourge of imperialist terrorism, that is destroying our freedoms, and bringing about fascism faster than the crisis of world capitalism could generate.

MN: Excellent. That example from Sweden is a good illustration of something that I know you've written about in the past, which is that the purely legal struggle in the courts is secondary to the mass movement of the people's support. So thank you once again for taking the time, and for this wonderful interview.

JMS: OK, thank you. •

(an MP3 of this interview can be found at the web site below)