Today, I attended the Recognition Rites for the Graduates of the University of the Philippines - Institute of Islamic Studies in Diliman. One of the six graduates of the M.A. in Islamic Studies program is my cousin Andabae Abbas-Abbas.
The Guest Speaker was medical doctor Abdurahman Ututalum Amin, a top MNLF leader and President of the ADD-Tribal Party List. He talked on "Peace and Development from a ‘Critical Perspective’". The following are excerpts from his speech:
On September 2, 1996, the Final Peace Agreement (FPA) between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), with the active participation of the Organization of islamic Conference (OIC), was signed in Malacanang Palace.
The FPA was hailed as a landmark by practically the whole world, including the European Union and the United States of America. Most of all, it was welcomed by millions of suffering Bangsamoro as the long awaited solution to end decades of armed conflict. FPA was the only major peace agreement successfully brokered by the OIC. President Fidel Ramos and MNLF Chair Nur Misuari received the UNESCO Peace Prize (Felix Houphouet-Boigny) for the successful signing of FPA …
The Agreement came after a quarter of a century of violent armed confrontation between the MNLF Mujaheedin and the Armed Forces of the Philippines with the collusion of the ILAGA, an Ilonggo para-military. Almost three million Moros were uprooted from their homes and livelihood; almost a million took refuge in Sabah, Malaysia; One hundred fifty thousand to two hundred thousand (150,000 - 200,000) died, mostly women, children and the elderly; 535 mosques demolished; 200 schools destroyed; 35 towns and barangays completely razed to the ground. The long and protracted conflict reduced the vibrant and dynamic Moro communities into abject poverty and lawlessness.
A successful peace agreement in order to provide "peace dividends" has to implement its provisions to actually achieve peace and development to its intended beneficiary. This is the essence of any conflict resolution. But can we say solemnly the presence of tangible peace and development in the Bangsamoro homeland after the FPA in 1996? In one of the statements of Senator Santanina Rasul: "Muslims are still the poorest of the poor, the worst off in the country. Surely, that says something about the progress (or lack of it) under the auspices of the 1996 FPA."
The government; however, have chosen to focus on outputs, like for example thepassage of the ARMM Organic Law (RA 9054) and EO 371 but the MNLF asserts that RA 9054 has become the greatest stumbling block towards the correct implementation of the agreement. The MNLGF and the OIC have not participated in the crafting of RA 9054. It is contrary to the letter and spirit of the 1976 Tripoli Agreement and 1996 FPA. Many of its provisions are in violation of the(se) two agreements…
In the assesment of the success of the peace agreement, the MNLF and other stakeholders look at the outcomes, which is (are) Peace and Development. In the words of President Ramos: "Statistical data show what all of us know: that Muslim Mindanao continues to suffer from abject poverty and underdevelopment.
It is very clear, there is no meaningful peace and development. There are no "peace dividends" as the result of the 1996 FPA. The former president admitted…that abject poverty and underdevelopment prevail in Muslim Mindanao after almost 13 years of the 1996 Final Peace Agreement.
Peace Agreements do not always lead to peace…As a matter of fact, 7 out of 10 peace agreements end up failing. Eighty-three (83)peace agreements were signed by the warring parties from 1989-2004.
There is an increasing need for politically negotiated settlements in order to attain peace and development…and avoid pitfalls to ensure success in implementation.
It is sad to conclude that the 1996 FPA FAILED. Unless the government, the MNLF and the other stakeholders will seriously come together to salvage what’s left of it.
While many are still talking of the aborted Memo of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the GRP and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), it behooves us to look into the 1996 FPA, which is a much larger (in scope and powers) and more comprehensive agreement than the MOA-AD.
If the 1976 Tripoli Agreement and the 1996 Final Peace Agreement are failures, why would anyone harbor any hopes for any future agreement between the GRP and the MILF?
Was the Abu Sayyaf hostage, Andreas Notter of Switzerland, released by the kidnappers or rescued by the Philippine military? The country’s 3 leading newspapers differ on the matter. The Philippine Daily Inquirer says he was released while the Philippine Star and Manila Bulletin say he was rescued.
Does it matter? Of course it matters. If the Swiss captive was rescued by a daring maneuver of the Philippine Army, then it means that the government is still a fully functioning government that can protect the lives of people in the country. If he was "released", then it merely confirms allegations that the Philippines is a failing, if not a failed state.
Wikipedia defines FAILED STATES as: "a state perceived as having failed at some of the basic conditions and responsibilities of a sovereign government."
The primary characteristic of failed states is "loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein". Another characteristic of a failed state is its "inability to provide reasonable public services."
The public services in the Philippines is anything BUT reasonable. But it is the first characteristic that this essay is concerned with. If the hostage, Mr. Notter, was merely released, then, basing on previous experiences with the Abu Sayyaf, one can only conclude that the release of the hostage was the quo for some quid. The quid, of course, comes not in pounds but in pesos or dollars.
DARING RESCUE BY POLICE AND CIVILIANS
The Philippine Star reported a chase and rescue operation:
SWISS HOSTAGE RESCUED
ZAMBOANGA CITY , Philippines – One of two foreign Red Cross workers held captive by Abu Sayyaf in Sulu was rescued by combined security forces early yesterday.
Swiss national Andreas Notter was rescued unharmed after police forces and civilian volunteers gave chase to a group of Abu Sayyaf gunmen trying to spirit him out of the security cordon near Indanan town, Interior and Local Government Secretary Ronaldo Puno told a news conference yesterday.
For three months, the Philippine military could not rescue the hostages (one was voluntarily released in April), yet now, it only needed the local town police and CIVILIAN volunteers to rescue one hostage.
INQUIRER VERSION
The Philippines Daily Inquirer, the least controlled newspaper in the land, has this report:
EX HOSTAGE TO RETURN TO SWITZERLAND TUESDAY
MANILA, Philippines — Swiss Andreas Notter, who was released by Abu Sayyaf bandits last Saturday, is set to return to his home country on Tuesday, after a brief stop in Manila, an official of the Philippine National Red Cross (PNRC) said.
The Inquirer has a longer report on the matter (Click here). And it is more revealing. In this report Swiss hostage walks free: But Abus still hold ailing ICRC worker, the report had this to say about the hostage himself:
Notter himself told reporters yesterday in Jolo, Sulu that he was “still a little bit confused how it happened” because “everything happened very quickly.”
…Notter, 37, recalled walking with his captors but not how authorities got hold of him.
“I walked out, and I’m happy to be alive and safe,” he said.
As Notter himself said, he simply "walked out." Yet, according to the same report, Notter "had difficulty walking even with a cane". In fact, he could not even recall how he was rescued!
The report went on to say:
"Chief Superintendent Felizardo Serapio, chief of integrated police operations for Western Mindanao, said Notter was rescued yesterday morning “near an established cordon” in the town of Indanan by militiamen – the Civilian Emergency Force – and the Indanan police."
“Actually, I don’t have a clear picture yet; everything is still garbled,” Serapio admitted.
The police general himself (note that police generals in Muslim Mindanao are Christians) admitted that he didn’t have a clear picture. And, according to him, civilian militiamen and the local town police (presumably all Moros) were the ones who did the "rescue".
Even the military general did not know what happened. According to the Inquirer:
Lieutenant General Nelson Allaga, chief of the Western Mindanao Command, also said Notter was found in Indanan.
“I’m not sure what barangay (village). Whether he was recovered, released or rescued, that I cannot say,” Allaga said.
A military spokesman said that Mr. Notter was "recovered" by the local police and civilian militia. The local security units then "recognized" Mr. Notter so they brought him to the governor’s house.
Lieutenant Colonel Edgard Arevalo, spokesman of the Task Force ICRC, said it was around 5:30 a.m. yesterday when Notter was recovered by members of the Siasi police and the Civilian Emergency Force in the vicinity of Barangays Katian and Mangilop in Indanan, a few minutes away from Jolo.
He said the civilian volunteers, who recognized Notter, immediately brought him to Governor Tan’s house.
THE GOVERNOR’S COMIC TALE
The governor had an interesting story. According to the report:
Tan said that earlier, Notter’s captors learned of the presence of soldiers around 500 meters away from where they were. He said that since the soldiers were in a vantage position, the Abu Sayyaf decided to evade them.
But the Abu Sayyaf stumbled on a group of police and militiamen, and fled in another direction, Tan said.
During the rush, Tan said, Notter was able to run in the direction of the police and the militiamen.
The Abu Sayyaf had withstood the Philippine military’s firepower for years. With the millions of dollars the group had accumulated through their years of kidnappings and banditry, one can presume that they have enough firepower to sustain their clandestine operations. Yet, according to Gov. Tan, these hardcore bandits were so scared upon seeing the military that they immediately ran towards another direction and when they "stumbled" upon a group of local police and militia, they immediately ran away and in their haste (and probably stupidity and cowardice), they even forgot to bring their hostage with them.
And again, Gov. Tan and the military wants us to believe that Mr. Notter, who was held captive for around three months, with barely anything to eat, and who could hardly walk with a cane (according to a witness), was able to run away from the bandits and into the loving arms of the police and militia.
THE REAL VERSION?
The Inquirer interviewed a member of that brave group of CIVILIAN militia. If anything, his version sounds like the real thing:
But according to a leader of the civilian volunteers who said he was one of those who collected Notter, the Swiss national was released by the Abu Sayyaf in Barangay Lipunos in Parang town close to midnight on Friday.
The volunteers initially thought the man they had was Vagni, said the source, who asked not to be named for lack of authority to speak on the matter.
“It was near midnight. We were mobilized toward Parang. We thought there was an operation. When we got there, a group of armed men met us and turned over a foreigner to us. We did not know who the armed men were,” the source said on the phone.
He said the foreigner carried a bag that contained his belongings.
“We were helping him because he had difficulty walking even with a cane. We thought he was Vagni,” the source said.
It was only yesterday morning that he realized that the foreigner was Notter, the source said
Asked whether Notter was rescued, as Serapio had claimed, the source said the foreigner was released and that no tension occurred between his group and that of the armed men.
CONCLUSION
From the Inquirer report, it seems obvious that Mr. Notter was not rescued at all. He was simply released by the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG). And since like any kidnap-for-ransom gangs, especially the very successful ones, the ASG does not release hostages for nothing. For so many years now, despite the government’s declared no-ransom policy, ransom payments to the group have been documented, alleged, sworn to, etc.
Despite the massive budget of the military, the militarization (military occupation) of Muslim Mindanao, all the government propaganda about its success in the "War on Terror", the various military operations — codenamed this and codenamed that — the Abu Sayyaf still does its kidnappings and even acts of beheading with impunity.
The case of the Abu Sayyaf Group proves that there is "loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein" in the country.
But the ASG is not the only one using force with impunity. The local vigilantes in Davao, the killers of the hundreds or thousands of desaparecidos all over the country. And of course, the more "legitimate" ones; namely, there’s the New People’s Army, the Moro National Liberation Front and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front.
Add to that the failure of the government to provide REASONABLE BASIC PUBLIC SERVICES, then perhaps one can conclude that the Philippines is indeed a failing, if not FAILED, STATE.
RECOMMENDATION
The government and the public should stop pretending that the Philippines is a fully functioning republic. We all know that we do not have a rule of law but a rule of men. The justice system is skewed in favor of the rich and politically powerful. There is no jury system. Judges and justices can be bought and there are many documented cases and scandals on that. Just hiring lawyers already requires a huge cash flow.
The election process is anything but democratic. Even the proposed automated systems have been shown to be easily manipulated.
In the past decades, the world’s economy was booming — growing by leaps and bounds. Yet the Philippine government was jumping up and down in glee when the country’s GDP went up a little beyond 7% about two years ago - its highest since the 1970s during Martial Law. With that GDP, other Asian countries like India and China, would cry and panic — not jump for joy.
The government and the people should realize that before the country becomes a totally failed state like Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, East Timor, Sri Lanka and Afghanistan, we must do something about it. We even send Filipinos to work in failed states (according to the Fund for Peace’s Failed States Index) like Lebanon and Syria. Lebanon and Syria could very well ask us, "Who’s the failed state?".
PEACE FIRST
Without peace, there can never be a fully functioning Philippines. The ‘no war-no peace’ situation is not an option. If there is real peace in Mindanao and elsewhere, half the budget of the military could be spent elsewhere — in education, housing, building infrastructure, etc.
With peace, investments, both local and foreign, can come in — in droves. With peace, tourism can flourish. With peace comes goodwill. And the prospect for progress and development would be very bright.
With peace, the government and the people can concentrate on other very important matters like the election process, education, the justice system, employment, etc.
And perhaps with peace, we can bring back the MERIT SYSTEM in our schools, offices, businesses, politics, government, both houses of Congress, etc. It is only with the Merit System that we can get rid of the drug lords, jueteng lords, entertainment stars, wheeler-dealers, scam artists and their ilk ruling our government, our Congress (including the Senate), our judiciary, our schools, our companies, etc.
The Fund For Peace rated 35 countries as Failed States. The Philippines comes in the next 25 with a Failed State Index of 83.4. This means that the Philippines is a FAILING STATE.
We must not wait to be listed in the top 35.
With the news headlines proclaiming that former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and/or former United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan might mediate between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the current political opposition, including its Moro spokespersons, insists that the Moro issue is an internal problem of the Filipinos and thus should be solved without foreign meddling. Their proposition is completely without basis. The Moro issue has always been, and will always be, an international concern.
The United States of America claimed the Philippine Islands by virtue of the Treaty of Paris in 1898 wherein Spain ceded the Philippine Islands as well as Cuba, Puerto Rico and other territories like Guam.
SPAIN HAD NO RIGHT TO CEDE MOROLAND
But the treaty itself is problematic because Spain did not have sovereignty over Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan. Spain, for 350 years, had not conquered or colonized Moroland. The Sultanate of Sulu claimed sovereignty over Sulu, Basilan, Tawi-Tawi, Zamboanga and North Borneo (Sabah). The Sultanate of Maguindanao and the Rajaship of Buayan claimed sovereignty over most of Mindanao including the Davao area and the Caraga area. The Maranao Confederacy claimed sovereignty over the Lanao area and its environs.
For those with a fetish for documents can see all the treaties signed by the Moro sultanates with the European powers (Dutch, British, French and Spanish) through the centuries and even one signed between the Americans and the Sulu Sultanate before 1898.
In 1898, Spain had actual possession of only a few forts in Mindanao. In the aftermath of the Philippine (Katipunan) revolution, the Moros, especially the Buayanens led by Datu Utto and Datu Ali, had their heyday shooing away the Spaniards from Moroland.
BATES TREATY
The Bates Treaty between the US and Sulu was signed in 1899. This proves that the US did not regard the Treaty of Paris as sufficient basis to come to Sulu.
Madge Kho (The Bates Treaty) says that the Tausug version of the treaty states: “The support, aid, and protection of the Jolo Island and Archipelago are in the American nation" but was deliberately mis-translated into English as "The sovereignty of the United States over the whole Archipelago of Jolo and its dependencies is declared and acknowledged." Ms. Kho wrote:
Najeeb Saleeby, an American of Lebanese descent who was assigned to Mindanao and Sulu, caught the translation flaws and charged Charlie Schuck, son of a German businessman, for deliberately mistranslating the treaty. Schuck was acquitted of all legal charges. Whether mistranslated, the wording of the treaty provided the justification for the U.S. decision to incorporate the Sulu Archipelago into the Philippine state in 1946.
THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION
Partly through their mailed fist policy, partly through their policy of attraction, the Americans were able to gain dominion over Moroland. But throughout the American occupation, Moro rebellion sprouted all over the place.
When the Christianized Filipinos started campaigning for Philippine independence, the Moros petitioned the American powers in the Philippines, the US Congress and the US President for either INDEPENDENCE SEPARATE from the Christian Filipinos or for Moroland to remain as American protectorate.
In my blog article Bangsa Moro Conflict - Historical Antecedents and Present Impact
I wrote:
QUOTE
During the American Occupation, the great majority of the Moros fought for independence through peaceful and even violent means. And they repeatedly communicated their desire for Independence. And if they could not have Independence, they would rather be with the Americans than with the Filipinos.
The Wood-Forbes Commission Report of 1922 stated:
“The Moros are a unit against independence and are united for continuance of American control and, in case of separation of the Philippines from the US, desire their portion of the Islands to be retained as American territory under American control. The pagans and non-Christians, constituting 10% of the population, are for continued American control. They want peace and security, These the Americans have given them.”
Countering Filipino propaganda that the Americans simply wanted to grab the lands of the Moros, Datu Gumbay Piang of Buayan declared in a speech in 1926 that the Moros “would be between two fearful and objectionable daggers – American at the one side and Filipino at the other. As a defenseless people they would have no alternative but choose which dagger would be less injurious. And, funny to say, they have already, since long ago, chosen the American dagger.”
With the intensified fight for Philippine Independence led by Manuel L. Quezon, the Moros sent various petitions to the US President and the US Congress. On June 9, 1921, the Moros of Sulu sent a petition to the US government which stated:
“We are independent for 500 years. Even Spain failed to conquer us. If the U.S. quits the Philippines, and the Filipinos attempt to govern us, we will fight.”
On February 4, 1924, another petition to the US Congress was signed by more than 100 datus led the Maguindanao Sultan Mangigin. The petition in part reads:
“…In the event that the United States grant independence to the Philippine Islands without provision for our retention under the American flag, it is our firm intention and resolve to declare ourselves an independent Constitutional sultanate to be known to the world as Moro Nation….”
The Moros found sympathetic ears in the US Congress. On May 6, 1926, Congressman Robert L. Bacon of New York gave a stirring speech in support of the Moros. He said:
“Their (the Moros’) so-called representation in the Philippine Legislature is a farce and a mockery. They are deliberately denied any share or participation in the government. They have no elective representatives…They have no magistrates, no judges, no public prosecutor drawn from their own people. And the guardians of law and order in their region – constabulary – are practically drawn from the ranks of their hereditary enemies – the Filipinos. The Filipinos are their lawmakers, their governors, their judges, their persecutors and their policemen. To these conditions the Moros respond by giving nothing but hate and unwilling submission.”
Some 75 years later, and the Moros find themselves still with no representation in the Senate, very few judges, and the guardians of law and public order – the military and police– are still practically drawn from the ranks of the Filipinos. Congressman Bacon added:
“The Philippine Islands are divided into two very distinct areas – the Christian provinces and the Mohammedan territory….These two regions belong to different and opposed civilizations – the Christian world and Islam.”
Congressman Bacon sponsored a bill that would retain Mindanao and Sulu in the event of Philippine independence. Other similar bills – the Roger, Cooper and Kies bills – were also deliberated in the US Congress.
During the deliberations of the 1935 Constitutional Convention, 189 ranking Maranao datus sent an appeal to the US Government through the Governor-General that stated:
…With regard to the forthcoming Philippine independence, we foresee that the condition will be characterized by unrest, suffering and misery…
One more discriminatory act of our Christian Filipino Associates is shown in the recent constitution of the Philippine Commonwealth. In that constitution, no provision whatsoever is made that would operate for the welfare of the Moros…the (provision of the) constitution are all for the welfare of the Christian Filipinos and nothing for the Moros. As proof of this, our delegate did not sign the constitution.
We do not want to be included in the Philippine Independence (for) once an independent Philippines is launched there will be trouble between us and the Christian Filipinos because from time immemorial these two peoples have not lived harmoniously. …It is not proper for two antagonizing peoples live together under Philippine Independence.
The Dansalan Declaration, as it came to be known went on to say that the Maranaos would rather “drown in the lake” than be included in the Philippine Independence.
END QUOTE
MYTH OF ONE FILIPINO PEOPLE
In the 1456-page book of Nicholas Tarling, The Cambridge History of Southeast Asia, he wrote:
Filipino nationalists, accusing the Americans of pursuing a divide-and-rule policy in the south, promoted the notion that Christians and Muslims alike constituted the Filipino people, and encouraged united action against colonial rule. (p.300)
This was the start of the One-Nation-One-People myth consistently being promoted by the Christian majority throughout the existence of the Philippine Commonwealth and Philippine Republic. This is now being bandied about by the political opposition and their Moro cohorts in insisting that the Moro issue is an internal matter, i.e., a matter than concerns only the Filipinos.
This myth was further boosted by the Americans themselves, who, according to Tarling (p.300):
…generally accepted this argument, adopting the idea that the Moros were (according to Frank Carpenter, then Governor of the Department of Mindanao and Sulu) ‘substantive Filipinos’, who had no national thought and were likely to come to ‘increasing and eventual homogeneity with the highly civilized Filipino type”, producing a national existence in which religious distinctions were immaterial.
The experience of the country since its independence has shown the utter falsity of the “Filipino” myth.
The great majority of the Moros never became “substantive Filipinos”; they yearned for their own national identity (as represented by the MIM, MNLF, MILF, BMLO, etc. and even the Sultanates and Datuships); and, they never became homogenized into the Filipino psyche.
But worse, Moro lands were declared public domain and distributed to Christians from Luzon and Visayas; Moro customs and traditions such as communal land ownership, leadership structures and even marriages were made illegitimate or illegal. There is near total control of the country’s politics and economy by the Christian majority.
THE QUESTION OF SABAH
In 1658, the Sultan of Borneo ceded Sabah and Palawan to the Sultan of Sulu as payment for the latter’s help in the dynastic war in Borneo.
On Jan. 22, 1878, the Sultan Jamal ul Azam of Sulu granted "pajak" (lease or trade monopoly) to Baron von Overbeck over Sabah or North Borneo.
The ownership of the Sulu Sultanate over Sabah was never questioned until the grant of Independence to the Malayan states.
In my online article Who Owns Sabah? , I wrote:
Although the Philippines became independent in 1946 and Mindanao and Sulu were included in the Republic, Manila’s hold on the South was tenuous. It practically had no idea that Sabah belonged to Sulu. Or if it did, it made no action whatsoever to include Sabah to the Philippines. In 1957 England granted its Malay colonies independence and the Sulu royals, along with the Indonesian government, protested immediately. It was only then that the new Philippine Republic faced the Sabah issue.
In 1961, Malaysia invited Singapore and Sabah to join the federation. The Sulu royalty again protested. The Sulu royals granted the Philippine President, Diosdado Macapagal, the authority to claim Sabah. Macapagal promptly opposed the Sabah annexation and sent a delegation to London. But neither Indonesia nor the Philippines could do anything because England declared that, with all its might, it stood firmly behind the creation of Malaysia. The US refused to back up Philippine claims and Indonesia had no one to turn to.
President Marcos tried to get Sabah by hook or by crook but it ended with the fiasco now known as the Jabidah massacre, which inspired the Moros to resume the Moro Wars in the early 1970s. One of the results of the ‘70s Moro Wars was the displacement of about half a million Moros to Sabah.
Despite Sabah’s annexation to the Malaysian Federation and Sulu’s inclusion in the Philippine Republic, the State of Sabah continues to pay annual rent to the Sulu royals as specified in the1878 lease, which now amounts to a mere token. The Sulu royalty since 1957 refuses to accept the annual rent although it receives the letters of payment.
REVOCATION
In 1989, Sultan Jamal ul-Kiram III sent a formal notice to the Philippine government revoking the Sultanate’s authorization to the Philippine government to claim Sabah. In a press conference on September 4 at the Sulo hotel, Sultan Jama ul-Kiram III reiterated its revocation of the Philippine government’s authority to negotiate for Sabah.
The Sabah issue, which is very much part of the Bangsa Moro issue, is inherently international.
RISE OF INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENTS
By the late 1960s, practically all Moro leaders of all political stripes and ethnic groups realized that the very existence of the Bangsa Moro was in danger. After the 1969 national elections, Moro political leaders from Lucman and Dimaporo in Lanao to the Sinsuats and Pendatun in Cotabato and the political leaders of Sulu had to raise their own private armies to fight the rampaging Christian vigilantes supported by the Philippine Army and Constabulary.
The Mindanao Independence Movement, the Bangsa Moro Liberation Organization, the Union of Islamic Forces and Organizations, etc. were formed.
Lanao Congressman Rashid Lucman initiated talks with then Sabah’s Chief Minister Tun Mustapha regarding the formation of a Moro separatist movement. The Malaysian multi-millionaire was tasked to be responsible for the funding of the movement.
In 1972, Macapanton Abbas, Jr. went to the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) in Jeddah and presented the Bangsa Moro case to the OIC Secretary-General Tunku Abdul Rahman, former Prime Minister of Malaysia. (See Salah Jubair, A Nation Under Endless Tyranny, pp. 152-153) The participation of the OIC, which is composed of 57 countries, makes the Moro issue definitely international. (See my post War in Moroland (Last Phase) by Jun Abbas)
During Martial Law, Moro revolutionary leaders were based abroad and campaigned internationally for the Moro cause. Nur Misuari was based in Libya, Hashem Salamat was based in Pakistan and Jun Abbas was based in Saudi Arabia.
In the late 1970s, Abbas, Lucman and former Senator Salipada Pendatun traveled to Europe and other Muslim countries to campaign for the Moro Cause. In 1985, Abbas and Dimas Pundato traveled to Europe and the US, including talks in the White House and Pentagon, to promote the Bangsa Moro Cause.
The Tripoli Agreement of 1976 signed in Libya and the Jakarta Accord of 1996 signed in Indonesia between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) and the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) were both held under the aegis of the OIC.
The aborted Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) between the GRP and the MILF was scheduled to be signed in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia under the auspices of the Malaysian government.
International personalities and members of the international diplomatic corps, including the US Ambassador to the Philippines, were already in Kuala Lumpur to witness the formal signing of the MOA–AD.
CONCLUSION
Those who say that the Moro issue is a purely Filipino affair are greatly mistaken. The Bangsa Moro issue has always been, and will always be, an international concern.
The Moro issue involves the U.S. because it was the one that made the Moros and the Indios (Christian Filipinos) live together in one country called the Republic of the Philippines.The "One Filipino Nation" was actually an American experiment, which has catastrophic results for the Moros and quite destructive results for the Indios and no great prospects for both.
The Moro issue involves Malaysia because of Sabah. It also involves Great Britain because the lease was made in favor of the British government’s trading arm, the British East India Company. And it was Britain that gave independence to Sabah and practically created the country now known as Malaysia.
The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), which is composed of 57 member states, has made the Moro issue their concern.
Moros who think that the Christian Filipinos will concede an inch of territory or an iota of power to the Moros without international pressure are either too young to know about the Mindanao Conflict or are simply ignorant of Philippine history and geopolitics. It must be noted that every concession obtained by the Moros from the Philippine government was paid for by so much blood, sweat and tears of both the Muslim and Christian Filipinos.
