Reflections on the Bangsa Moro

 

In my post The Bangsa Moro is an International Concern, a reader, DATUAN SOLAIMAN PANOLIMBA (datuan.panolimba@yahoo.com) wrote a rather long "comment". Because of its length, I am instead publishing it in this post.

=================================

ARMED STRUGGLE OF THE BANGSAMORO MUSLIMS IN THE PHILIPPINES:

Written by: DATUAN SOLAIMAN PANOLIMBA-
North Cotabato, Philippines

Bismillaher Rahmaner Raheem. Asalamo Alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuho.

The Bangsamoro Muslims of Mindanao and its islands have fought the longest and bloodiest struggle in the entire history of mankind in the world which extends to about four hundred eighty seven (487) years already up to this writing. First, the Bangsamoro people fought, without let up, against the Spanish colonial power for 377 years from 1521 to 1898. Second, they fought a bloody war against the American imperialist from 1898 up to 1946.And third, they are still fighting against the Philippine neo-colonial power from 1946 up to the present.

In fact the present JIHAD FIY SABILILLAH waged by the Bangsamoro people is a continuation of the struggle which had been fought by their ancestors and forebears demanding for freedom and independence. The 487-year war which has been fought by the Bangsamoro is replete with historical facts.

“But what is surprising is despite of the long period of war being fought for; the Bangsamoro people are still engaged in a war for freedom and independence. The struggle which has been fought by the Bangsamoro in four hundred eighty seven years (487) had extensively covered by the Muslim historians and authors in their books such as Dr. Cesar Adib Majul in his “Muslims in the Philippines, 1973, Manila, Philippines, ” Dr. Alunan C. Glang in “Muslim Secession or Integration, 1969, Quezon City, Philippines, ” and Salah Jubair in “Bangsamoro: A Nation Under Endless Tyranny, 1997, Lahore, Pakistan.”

THE FIRST MORO WAR:

After securing the friendship with Rajah Humabon of Cebu, Ferdinand Magellan, who led the Spanish colonial adventure in the Far East, invaded the small kingdom of Mactan in 1521. The island was then ruled by Rajah Lapu-Lapu who did not want to be a friend of foreign colonizer.

It can be noted, therefore, that Visayas before was believed under the influence if not one of the principalities controlled by the Moro Sultanate of Sulu or Maguindanao at that early period of time. See Map of Moro Sultanate, principalities and areas in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao at the time of the arrival of Spaniards in 1521. (Source: London Library and Museum). Unfortunately, Magellan died in action on April 27, 1521 that drove the Spaniards back to the West and by such incident, they had narrated their fiasco under the hands of the native inhabitants.

Thus, Lapu_Lapu stood as the first native chieftain who fought against foreign attempt to colonize the Moro homeland.
The Spanish dream had yet started so that in 1522, with Captain Sebastian Del Cano at the head of the Spanish survivors, Spain became the first circumnavigator of the globe as declared.

SPAIN’S AGGRESSION:

Crown Prince Felipe, known as King Philip II of Spain, directed Captain Miguel Lopez de Legaspi, the viceroy of Mexico, to go to the Philippine island and to make it a permanent Spanish colony. He landed at Cebu where he had established the first Spanish settlement in 1565. In 1569, he proceeded to Panay where a second Spanish settlement was created.

After quelling some minor resistances staged by the native inhabitants, he sent Captain Martin de Goiti to Luzon, particularly in Manila where a well-fortified Moro principality was located. It was ruled by Rajah Solaiman and assisted by Rajah Matanda. Tondo then was ruled by Rajah Lakandula. Records has showed that these Manila chieftains where of Bornean origin. In fact, their relationship with the Sultan of Borneo was categorized as very closed to each other.

Rajah Solaiman who led the fight for freedom and independence, declared to the foreign aggressors the following words: ” WE WISH TO BE THEN FRIENDS OF ALL NATIONS. BUT THEY MUST UNDERSTAND THAT WE CANNOT TOLERATE ANY ABUSE. ON THE CONTRARY, WE WILL REPAY WITH DEATH THE LEAST THING THAT TOUCHES OUR HONOR.”Unfortunately, on June 3, 1571, Rajah Solaiman perished at the historic Battle of Bangkusay, a place off the coast of Tondo, but he left with a patriotic landmark in his defense of freedom and independence of the country. The next to fall, despite of a fierce defense by the native inhabitants, was the Muslim principality of Mindoro in 1574.

Then came the short-lived Magat Salamat Uprising in 1587. Emerging victorious over the pockets of resistance were the Spanish conquistadors. So that within a span of 11years, they were able to overlord the territory of Luzon and Visayas. Legaspi, who was appointed as the first Governor-General, had made Manila as the seat of Spanish colony in Luzon and Visayas, which was collectively called as “Filipinas” or “Philippine Islands” eventually.

“Salah Jubair succinctly wrote “it is necessary to clarify, contrary to popular perception, two important points in history: Firstly, the first group of people whom the Spaniards in 1570 called “Moros” were those in Manila and environs and not the Islamized natives in Mindanao and Sulu and secondly, the first Moro-Spanish War was not fought in Mindanao and Sulu but right in what is Metropolitan Manila.

“THE MORO-SPANISH WAR:

The 377 year of Moro-Spanish War represents an uninterrupted bloody war which had been fought by the Moros against the Spaniard’s attempt to subjugate them as a people. At first, the Spaniards thought that Borneo was more of a threat to the Manila colony than the Muslims of Mindanao and Sulu. So they invaded Borneo in 1578. However, after their Bornean expedition, the Spaniards had turned their eyes on the Moros in the South, particularly, Sulu which they were suspecting of having an alliance with the Borneans.

The Spanish colony towards the Moros was basically spelled out in the instructions of Governor-General Francisco de Sande to Captain Esteban Rodriguez de Figueroa in May of 1578. Figueroa was officially commissioned to subdue the Moro Sultanate of Mindanao and Sulu.

It was clear then from the instructions given to him, Spain sought to achieve two things with respect to the Moros of Mindanao namely: 1. Get them to acknowledge Spanish sovereignty over their territory. 2. Promote trade with them, limiting their trade to the Philippine islands and exploring natural resources of Moro land with a view to their commercial exploitations. 3. Bring an end to Moro “piracy” against Spanish shipping, and an end to Moro raids on the Christianized settlements of the Visayas and Southern Luzon. 4. Hispanize and Christianize the Moros, along the same lines followed with respect to other lowland Filipino (Indio) groups.

According to Dr Peter G. Gowing, the last line Spanish policy was the reason if not the root of the Moro’s fierce resistance to the Spaniards and their Christianized Filipino allies. Capt. Figueroa was instructed to order the Moro chief not to admit any more “preachers of the doctrine of Mahomet since it is evil and false, and that of the Christianity alone is good.” Ad-dressing himself to the “Lord of Mindanao, ” the instruction includes: “You shall tell him that our object is that he be converted to Christianity and that he must allow us freely to preach the law of the Christians, and the natives must be allowed to go and hear the preaching and to be converted, without receiving any harm from the chiefs.

“Furthermore, Figueroa was instructed to ascertain who the preachers of Islam were so that they can be arrested and brought them before the Governor-general. He was also commanded to destroy any Masjeed he founded “where that accursed doctrine has been preached and you shall order that it be not be rebuilt. “As he was instructed to meet force with force and to punish the Moros as he deemed best “taking special care not to trust them…..,” the Moros responded to such designs with violence and warfare. In 1596, during the initial Spanish campaign in Buhayan (Buayan) in the heart of Mindanao, Figueroa met his disastrous defeat.

The erstwhile Spanish conquistador suffered death at the hands of the Moro warriors led by Datu Ubal (Mangubal in Moro tradition). The initial Spanish campaign in Mindanao had ignited and caused the series of bloody encounters between the Moros and the Spaniards, in which,it was carried up to the coming of the Americans in 1899.

MORO WARS:

In retaliation to the Spanish cruelty, the Moros had carried out the war to the Spanish settlements in Luzon and Visayas. In 1599 led by Datu Sirongan and Datu Salikula of Mindanao, the Moros raided the northern islands and return home with rich war booty including several captives. The Moro actions had created fear and anxiety among the Spanish and Filipino settlements in Luzon and Visayas.

In succeeding years, the Moro buccaneers harassed Spanish shipping, and so were dubbed “pirates”. But to the Moros they believed they were fighting a war in defense of freedom and independence. Thus, Sultan Kudarat I, after his ascension to power to the Sultanate of Mindanao in 1619, declared a Jihad against Spain whom he had emboldened more than ever the Moros to fight for home, country and Islam. Their expeditions carried Jihad to the coasts of Visayas and Luzon.

From then on, the Moro war vessels periodically raided, killed and plunders Spanish settlements. Thus, it was dubbed really a bloody war. The Spaniards counter move was seen in their series of punitive expeditions against the Moros. The expeditions were made up of Spanish-led Christian Filipino forces. Which eventually, the Spaniards had succeeded to establish forts in Moro homeland, however, their colonies were only confined inside their fortified garrisons. They failed to subdue the Moros who were periodically attacking their forts.

From the 18th up to the 19th centuries of Spanish successive engagement in the “Moro Wars”, it was never followed by effective and permanent occupation of the Bangsamoro ancestral homeland. The American historian Dr. Najeeb Saleeby rightly observed that “the Moros fought for home and country, for freedom to pursue their religion and way of life, and for liberty to rove the seas whichever they would.” For over 300years, they had made a shamble of Spain’s Moro policy.

Even with the importation of Spanish war vessels in the middle of the 19th century did not stop the Moro raids of Spanish and Filipino settlements of Visayas and Luzon. Despite of being guerilla fighters, the Moro exacted a heavy toll of casualties, however, when entrenched in their ‘cota’ (fort) they simply could not be rooted out.

When situation demanded they would have readily killed their wounded and gave no quarter to the Spanish and Christian Filipino enemy. They fought ferociously, and their usual tactic was to wear down the attackers, obliging them eventually to withdraw. At the close of the 19th century, the Spanish colonial power in Luzon and Visayas was threatened by the Filipino Revolution of 1896 and the coming of the American colonial power in 1898.

Subsequently, the Treaty of Paris was concluded on December 10, 1898 between the United States of America and Spain wherein the latter had ceded to the Americans her former colony in Mexico, Honolulu and the Philippine Islands with the amount of $20 million. With this treaty, the Spaniards abandoned their colony in the north by virtue of the Treaty of Paris. So that the Moros of the south remained a free and independent people. Thus, they were not subjugated by their conquistadors.

AMERICAN AGGRESSION:

The Bangsamoro people of Mindanao were already enjoying freedom and independence when the Filipinos declared a revolution against Spain in 1896. When the Americans arrived in the Philippine islands in 1898, the Philippine Revolution was already in progress in Luzon and Visayas. The so called “Spanish-American war” was also nearing its end.

For instance, Commodore George Dewey, commanding the American naval flotilla, defeated the Spanish Pacific Squadron during “Battle of Manila Bay” on May 1, 1898. Subsequently, the United States of America assumed the authority in the Philippine Islands by virtue of the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898. But the Filipinos, who declared the independence of the First Philippine Republic on June 1, 1898, had to fight a new imperialist power.

Maverick as it was, the Americans sought the forging of the Bates-Kiram Agreement on August 20, 1899 with a view to neutralizing the Moros of the south while they were still engaging the forces of President Emilio Aguinaldo in the north.

After three years of Filipino-American war, the Americans were able to crush the Philippine revolution and declared a general amnesty in 1902. The Americans, after having a unilateral abrogation of the Bates-Kiram Agreement, had now turn their eyes to the Moros of Mindanao.

In May 1899, the first US Army contingent landed in Jolo, Sulu. The US troops had also occupied Zamboanga on November 16 and followed the Cotabato areas in December. This began the American occupation of Mindanao which ended in May 1920 when the Department of Mindanao and Sulu was abolished as a government unit.

MORO-AMERICAN WAR:

For all practical reasons, the American occupation of the Moro land was a direct affront to the freedom and independence of the Moros. The lesson from the Spanish policy of subjugation was still fresh in the minds and hearts of the Moros. With the Americans, the Moros have had similar views, as a threat, and a change of colonial master which had the same intention with that of their predecessor, that is, to subjugate them as a people.

Thus trouble had erupted as early as May 1899. But this time, the next generation of Moros took the cudgel. Soon various confrontations flared up in Mindanao and Sulu. This led J. Ralston Hayden, an American writer, to note that “never during the entire continental expansion of the United States had armed encounters been as frequent and serious as that between the Moros and American troops.”

The Moros’ determination to defend their religion and country had prompted the American colonizers to comment that “THE ONLY GOOD MORO IS A DEAD MORO.” Record has showed that there were at least 20,000 Moros who were killed in action from 1899 to 1916. From 1904 to 1906 alone, the Moros suffered about 3,000 killed as against 70 Americans.

Large-scale engagements were recorded between the American troops and the Moro warriors in several parts of Mindanao and Sulu from 1902 to 1935. The most serious were those staged by Panglima Hassan, Datu Ali, Datu Ampuan
Agaus and Jikiri.

Shortly after the establishment of the Philippine Commonwealth Government on November 15, 1935 with Manuel L. Quezon as the first President, the Moros had viewed it as the transfer of colonial government to a new master. It could be noted, therefore, that Mindanao and Sulu were forcefully annexed to the Commonwealth government. Again, the Moros rose in arms in defense of their freedom and independence.

The most serious armed rebellion that took place in Mindanao was happened in June 1936. It was spearheaded by Hadji Abdulhamid Bungabong of Unayan, Lanao del Sur and lasted for several years. The Moros fought gallantry and heroically in a series of wars called “COTA WARS”. The grievances were contained in a petition letter sent to the President of the United States of America. The issues presented were:

1. Moros had become second class citizens.

2. The Moro Province be segregated once independence is given to the Filipinos.

3. Acquisition of lands in the Moro Province be reserved for the Moros.

4. Islam must not be curtailed in any manner.

    

The uprising lasted until the dawning of the Japanese interregnums in 1941. The Moros were once again caught in the crossfire between two colonial masters. But now between the Americans and the Japanese which saw its peak from 1942 to 1945.

 

PARLIAMENTARY STRUGGLE:

In 1946 it saw the final annexation of the Moro land to the new Philippine Republic. Historians, in the likes of Salah Jubair, have succinctly observed that “The U.S. colonial government and the succeeding Filipino neo - colonial power have utterly failed to stamp out Moro resistance. But they have succeeded in rendering the Moro traditional power structure effete and almost obsolete.”

“The main casualties were the sultans and datus, whose authority had been squelched to the extent, that they had become mere symbols of the past and mute relics of history,” he pointed out. “The sultan-people direct dealing, ” he continued “has been almost severed and , to get rid of the evils of dual rule, meaning sultan and government ruling simultaneously, the Commonwealth government directed all state-installed officials in 1936 to take over the roles so far exercised by the sultans and datus.”

Elaborating that the disintegration of the traditional socio-political order and the ever-tightening imposition of the secular-materialistic concept of life bequeathed by the Americans, Salah Jubair said that it has created an extensively difficult situation for the Moros. Consequently, those who were won over to the American side, freely or under duress, were the ones who with their pens, slogans and orations adopted and pursued the parliamentary or unarmed way of struggle.

These crops of Moro intellectuals asked the United States government to separate the Moro Province, either as colony or as independent state. Singly or in chorus, they unanimously refused to join the Filipinos in their demand for independence. It was true that they did not succeed, neither did they achieve anything of consequence in terms of the real liberation of the Moros-that obviously, was already fore doomed from the start.

But there is no gain slaying the fact that they did their best in their own way. Yet, on the other hand, by following the unarmed way of struggle, they were deeply entangled into the Americans cobweb and continued to become subservient to the whims and caprices of the new colonial masters.

Failing to achieve their aspiration to be free and independent during the American colonial days, the Moro parliamentary struggle dragged to the post-war Philippine administrations. Couple with some isolated disturbances, armed clashes between Moro warriors and government troops were reported in various parts of Mindanao.

The off-and-on armed skirmishes continued to plague the countryside in open defiance of government authorities. Whatever it may said about the post-war pocket uprisings in Mindanao and Sulu, it could be attributed to the fact that the Moros have never abandoned their desire to be free and independent from the clutches of neo-colonialism in their sacred and ancestral homeland. Nurtured by socio-cultural discrimination, the most known of these uprisings were those led by Kamlon Hajji, Abdulmajid Panondiongan, Tawantawan and Hadjal Uh. It took billions of pesos from the national coffers in quelling these insurrections.

Such that amid cries of national neglect and apathy, Congressman Ombra Amilbangsa of Sulu Province had gone to extent of sponsoring a bill in Philippine Congress in 1961 which sought to declare the independence of the Province of Sulu from the Philippine Republic. The Moro solon was disgusted by the chronic ills and inequities prevalent in the Philippine society where the Moros were the direct victims. His bill did not merit the attention of his colleagues in Congress and his move was simply dismissed as a “drama” or “attention-calling.”

MORO STRUGGLE CONTINUED:

In 1968, the then Governor Datu Udtog Matalam of the empire Cotabato Province created the Mindanao Independence Movement (MIM) seeking the separation of Mindanao, Sulu, Basilan, Tawitawi and Palawan from the Republic of the Philippines and to establish an Islamic State in the sacred and ancestral homeland of the Bangsamoro people. But the dream and aspiration of the grand old man of Cotabato failed.

Finally in 1972, the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and its military wings, the Bangsamoro Army led by Prof. Nur Misuari went public declaring armed struggle as its principal instrument in the formation of a Bangsamoro Republik encompassing Mindanao, Sulu, Basilan, Tawitawi and Palawan. It sought to liberate Moro people and homeland from Philippine colonialism.

The reverberating sounds of the firearms and mortars of the Bangsamoro Revolution
led by the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) pressured the Philippine government under the then dictator President Ferdinand Marcos to entered into an agreement with the MNLF leadership in December 23, 1976. The agreement was known as “Tripoli Agreement of 1976.” It sought to establish an autonomous government for Muslims in South of the Philippines under its sovereignty and territorial integrity. But Pres. Marcos grossly violated the letter and spirit of the entire agreement.

When President Corazon (Cory) Aquino catapulted to the Philippine presidency in 1986 because of the Peoples Power Revolution against Pres. Marcos, she created the Autonomous Region Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), but still failed to finally solved the Bangsamoro problem in Mindanao and its islands.

Until in 1992, when President Fidel V. Ramos became president of the Philippines after President Cory Aquino, his government negotiated with the MNLF leadership which resulted to the creation of Southern Philippine Council for Peace and Development (SPCPD) on September 2, 1996. But still the Bangsamoro dream of freedom and independence became more obscure. It was because of the fact that all agreements entered by and between the MNLF and GRP are only a showpiece of the Philippine government in order to smokescreen the oppression, colonization, exploitation and extermination of the Bangsamoro people. This regional set-up of government is nothing but an adjunct of the Filipino colonial government. It is being used by the Philippine government to further fortify the Filipino colonialism over the Bangsamoro people and their ancestral homeland.

So that when the MNLF leadership compromised the liberty and independence of the Bangsamoro people in December 1976, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), chaired by the late Ameril Mujahideen Ustadz Salamat Hashim went public assuming and leading the JIHAD FEY SABILILLAH of the Bangsamoro people for final liberation, freedom and independence, nsALLAH SUBHANAHO WA’TAALA.

Late Ustadz Salamat Hashim, then Ameril Mujahideen and Chairman, Central Committee of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) said and we quote, “Any solution less than full independence of the Bangsamoro people will not work. Past experiences since the be-
ginning of the annexation of the Bangsamoro homeland to the Philippines in 1935, have proven that the Bangsamoro Muslims could not live a normal life under a corrupt and secular government and that the two nations, the Bangsamoros and the Filipinos, could not get along with each other because of their distinct religions, customs and traditions. It will be for the best interests of the Bangsamoros and the Filipinos if both are free” and quote.

Wasalamu Alaykum Warahmatullahi Wabarakatuho.

 

 

 

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.

              

 

 

The physics that people of our generation studied in high school and college is not the same as physics today. In fact, most high school and college students of today still study the Old Physics because their teachers know no better. Most of us still know only of two elementary forces – the electromagnetic force and gravity. Most of us believe that the tiniest particles in the universe are the subatomic particles electron, neutron and protons. And most of us believe there are only 4 dimensions including Time.

In my article Magic of Science published in Mr. Ms. Magazine (July-Aug 2008), I wrote:

 

The 20th century was greeted by the theories of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity, the twin pillars of the New Paradigm…

…Moreover, Heisenberg discovered that one could not observe the particle with certainty. There is simply no instrument, even theoretically speaking, that could measure both a particle’s momentum and position. This is the famous Uncertainty Principle. In addition, the very act of observation affects the experiment.

By the first quarter of the 20th century, it was clear that the death of Physics was not at hand. Rather, it was the end of Newtonian physics.

Einstein proved that all measurements are correct only relative to a frame of reference…

…The new physics is a physics of possibilities, of tendencies, of relativity – not of absolutes. The experimenter affects the experiment. Philosophically, this means that the observer and the observed are interactive, inseparable. And not everything can be explained completely. Light does not have to be either a particle or a wave. It could be both. Or it could be neither. We simply do not have the proper instruments to determine the exact properties of light. In the same vein, man could be body, mind or spirit or maybe something else.

With a quantum jump, subatomic particles can disappear from one place and reappear in another without crossing the intervening distance… Results of quantum experiments support the idea that everything in the Universe is interconnected.

FUNDAMENTAL FORCES

Gravity is the universal fundamental force affecting all bodies while Electromagnetism acts between electrically-charged particles. The physicists at the end of the 19th century thought gravity and electromagnetism were the only fundamental forces that make the universe work.

Through quantum mechanics, the physicists discovered that protons and neutrons are not elementary particles. They are composed of still tinier particles called quarks and gluons. The physicists also discovered a host of other elementary particles. The study of these particles introduced two more fundamental forces - the weak nuclear force and the strong nuclear force. These forces are responsible for the interaction of these extremely tiny elementary particles.

While quantum theory paved the way for the discovery of numerous subatomic particles, the relativity theory enabled astrophysicists to discover more stars, clusters of galaxies, supernovae and even discover (or mathematically construct) concepts such as black holes, wormholes, voids and dark matter.

SUPERSTRINGS THEORY

However, particle physicists and astrophysicists reached a dilemma. Gravity is impossible in Quantum theory while it is inevitable in General Relativity theory. Fortunately, Superstrings came to the rescue. The superstrings theory allowed gravity in the quantum world with a new particle called graviton.

The physicists say that the universe started with the Big Bang. But the Big Bang, the very beginning of the universe, was a singularity – a zone of infinite temperature and density and zero mass. But in such a zone, the laws of Physics cannot apply. Again, the magic of Superstrings theory somehow resolved the mathematical difficulties.

In the superstrings theory, the universe is made of subatomic particles even tinier than the elementary particles called quarks, the basic building blocks of matter. They are called strings, billions of times tinier than an atom. (Others say strings are actually quarks in a particular state). These minute energies vibrate like violin strings and cause complex harmonics which create the electrons, neutrinos and other elementary particles which the universe is composed of.

From numerous superstrings theories, the physicists whittled them down to five. But in Physics, there should only be one theory for one phenomenon. And so came the M-theory, which seems to have unified the five superstrings theories and validated both quantum and relativity theories.

With the M-theory, physicists can resolve the very beginning of our universe – the moment of the Big Bang. M-theory also tries to unify all the four fundamental forces of nature, that is, reduce the four forces into one. The cosmos and the subatomic world will be described by one general unified theory. Thus, the M-theory is sometimes called the “theory for everything” or the “mother of all theories”. Proving this theory is every physicist’s dream.

According to the M-theory, there are eleven dimensions and not just the four that we are accustomed to (3-dimensional space plus the time dimension). And, there is probably more than one universe.

 

This rather long digression on physics is cited to illustrate that the world we are living in is much more complex than the one described by Newtonian physics. This has ramifications in the field of philosophy and all other fields of knowledge, especially in Politics and Leadership.

 

In this new paradigm, action is voluntary. Persons are self-moving and one cannot predict behavior based on outside variables. For example, nobody believed that anyone could beat the very popular Fernando Poe, Jr, much less by the unpopular sitting president. But it happened, by whatever means.

 

For one thing, no one could have predicted that the late Poe, Jr., a long-time movie superstar, would be very unpopular to the media people during the presidential campaign.

 

The new paradigm indicates that Knowledge is created socially. People in the old paradigm believe that the Philippines is a homogeneous state composed of one people, one nation, one culture (whose national hero is Rizal, national language is Tagalog but called Pilipino, national dress is Barong Tagalog for males and baro’t saya for females, national tree is Narra, national flower is sampaguita, etc.)

 

Benedict Anderson (1983) and other writers state that nations are nothing but “imagined communities”.  Wilson and Dissanayake (1996) says: “The nation-state, in effect, having been shaped into an ‘imagined community’ of coherent modern identity through warfare, religion, blood, patriotic symbology and language…”

 

The Philippine nation-state project was able to convince the Ilocanos, Ilonggos, Cebuanos, Bicolanos, etc. that they belong to the “Filipino nation”. But it simply did not and does not work with the Moros who have a long history of being nations themselves – nations forged through “warfare, blood, patriotic symbology and language”.

 

In the alternative thought, theories are considered historical. This means that the theories reflect the settings and time they were created. Many Filipinos believe in the "theory" of the sacredness of the nation-state called Philippines. In this theory, the Republic of the Philippines must forever be made intact, centrally-planned with all powers emanating from Manila, that the Christian majority must always dominate all aspects of economic and political power, etc. These are the same people who believe that the 1987 Constitution, which was framed by a bunch of mostly old politicians handpicked by then President Cory Aquino, is sacrosanct.

 

In this paradigm, theories themselves affect the “reality” they are covering. In science, this means that the experimenter affects the experiment. Sociologically and psychologically, this means that the ideas of individuals like Ms. Aquino affect their surroundings. Thus, they see only what they want to see.

 

The new paradigm recognizes that all theories are value-laden. Theories are never neutral. The Philippine Constitution, be they of the 1935, 1973 or 1987 variety, was never neutral. They are laden with values held dearly by their framers – most of whom were non-Moros.

 

NEW PARADIGM OF POWER AND POLITICS

 

As I have written in other articles, the paradigm of Power and Politics must reflect the new paradigm of Science.

 

Human as Conqueror vs. Human as part of surroundings

 

In the old paradigm, man thinks of himself as conqueror of nature, including other people. Since the 1935 Commonwealth, the Indios (the Christianized natives of the Philippine Islands) believe themselves to be conqueror of Moros by thinking themselves to be descendants of Spaniards or allies of the Americans.

 

Since the grant of Philippine independence in 1946, the Indios acted as conquerors of Moros and Moroland. They have denuded the forests of Mindanao through massive logging activities and they exploited Moroland’s natural resources and gave away Moro lands to Indio homesteaders, immigrants, carpetbaggers, etc.. They have made by law all Moroland as public (meaning Indio) domain.

 

This situation could not last. The Indios must regard themselves not as conquerors of Moros, Igorots, etc. but as part of the Philippine society which includes the cultural minorities.

 

Change through Authority vs. Change through Consensus

 

The Indios must not impose change through authority. There must be consensus. When the government tried to create consensus through negotiations with the MILF, Indios like Mr. Pinol, Mr. Roxas and Mr. Drilon rallied the Christian Filipino people to stop the agreement. Using the Senate and the Supreme Court, they again imposed their will to maintain the status quo.

 

The government bowed down to the wishes of people like Mr. Pinol and imposed a DDR (Disarmament, Demobilization and Rehabilitation) policy with Moro armed groups. There can be no peace with DDR. And the government, as well as all thinking people, knows that.

 

Centralized vs. Decentralized government

 

The “old-paradigmers” still insist that governments should have strong centralized government with a vertical power structure. This way, the elites (many of them upstarts) can control everything from Manila.

 

But now is the time for de-centralized form of government. There must be a horizontal distribution of power. In a multicultural society, this is imperative.

 

A federal form of government with greater regional autonomy is the way of the future. The European Union is the primary example. Perhaps it is time for a Philippine Union with an Ilocano State, Ilonggo State, Maranao State, Maguindanao/Buayan State, Tagalog State, etc. This way, not almost everything will go to the Tagalogs. Each state can spend its revenues for the benefit of its people. On the other hand, the people will have the motivation to work well and avoid corruption so as to help its state be better than other Philippine Union states. There would be friendly competition and mutual cooperation among states. There would be lasting peace, too.

 

Power against others vs. Power with Others

 

In this century, people must stop thinking of having power OVER others. It is time to think about sharing Power WITH others. Politics need not be a win-lose situation. It can be a WIN-WIN situation.

 

If Moros will have the right to determine its destiny, there will be peace in Mindanao and other islands and prosperity will come to the WHOLE Philippines, to all its inhabitants as investments can flow in, tourists will come and people can engage in productive activities.

 

Vested Interests vs. Respect for Others’ Autonomy

 

The old paradigm of vested interests, Machiavellian machinations and Power brokers must stop. In the recent US presidential elections, Barack Obama campaigned against the lobbyists whose principals with vested interests have controlled the US politics for a long time. Obama’s victory hopefully meant the defeat of the vested interests. And hopefully, the Philippine power brokers would soon realize that their days of glory are over,

 

In the 21^st century, more and more nations will realize that they have to respect the autonomy of others for a better life for all.

 

Party/Issue-oriented vs. Paradigm-oriented

 

Barack Obama issued the clarion call for Change in his presidential campaign. He said he did not want to be the President of the Blue States (Democrats) but the President of the Blues and the Reds, i.e., of all Americans. And his central theme was for a Paradigm-Change. He called for a stop to the Climate of Fear and freedom from the powers of vested interests (lobbyists).

 

In the Philippines, parties and issues have long been in the background in political elections. Vested interests and individual popularity are the rules of the game. In this century, politics must be based on Weltanschauung or world view. Those who belong to the old world view can only lead to ruin. The Recession in America and Europe is a clear indication that the old economic worldview is just that – old and worn-out. The extreme unpopularity, even in his own country, of George W. Bush again proves that there is a need for a New perspective on Reality.

 

Those who believe in the Clash of Civilizations (CC) scenario or the War on Terror need to change their beliefs or simply fade away. The Americans and the British have rejected the biggest proponents of the CC scenario and the War on Terror – George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Great Britain, through its young Foreign Minister has announced that for two years now, England has not subscribed to the principle or idea of a War on Terror.

 

It is time for Philippine politicians to stop thinking of the Mindanao conflict as a mere war between Muslims and Christians. It is much more than that. And the government needs to stop making the War on Terror the excuse for the militarization of Moroland. And the powers-that-be who support clandestinely the Abu Sayyaf Group need to stop doing so.

 

Non-Interference/Sovereignty vs. Creative Action

 

The Philippine government keeps on using Sovereignty an issue in the Mindanao war. Politicians are even demanding non-interference from foreign nations about the conflict in the South.

 

Philippine sovereignty is at best, imaginary. Russian President, now Prime Minister Vladimir Putin constantly reminds the world that Russia is one of the VERY FEW sovereign countries in the world. This is his way of telling the US that while it controls so many so-called sovereign countries, it cannot control or impose its will on Russia.

 

The Philippines, of course, is not part of the very few sovereign countries considered by Putin.

 

The Mindanao war, by its very nature, necessarily involves other countries. In 1976, then President Marcos was the one who sued for peace. The result was the Tripoli Agreement which was an international legal document but was implemented only in the breach.

 

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is composed of 57 nation-states and has taken cognizance of the Moro Problem since the 1970s. The OIC simply cannot be taken out of the picture in any peace settlement for Moroland.

 

The Philippine government/Indio vested interests keep on citing the Constitution and “Sovereignty” in order to disregard international agreements with the MNLF and now, MILF. Instead of creating hindrances, what is needed is freedom for “creative action.”

 

The 1987 Constitution was not made in Heaven. It was crafted by mostly old people handpicked by a housewife-turned-President (Cory Aquino).

 

For creative action, Self-Knowledge is important. The Filipino people, Moros and Indios alike, must look inside themselves and try to truly understand what the conflict is all about so it could be remedied to the betterment of all concerned.

 

INTEGRATION/ASSIMILATION vs. MULTICULTURALISM/ PLURALISM

 

Integrating or Assimilating the Moros and other highlanders into the greater Philippine society has been tried and had failed. In the 1940s, Congressmen even proposed that the indigenous peoples of the Cordilleras must wear Western clothing or be imprisoned.

 

In the name of Assimilation and Integration, the Americans and the Manila government since 1913 “aided the immigration of Christian Filipino farmers from Luzon and Visayas to the sparsely settle agricultural lands of Mindanao and Sulu… Continued immigration brought economic confrontation at the most basic level.” (R. Thomas, 1971: Muslim But Filipino: The Integration of Philippine Muslims 1917-1946)

 

Thomas, quoting from The Philippine Herald (1/8/27) wrote: “Sen. Sumulong ‘deplored that Mindanao has fast become the ‘dumping ground’ for all the UNDESIRABLE in the local government service. Very often, men of DOUBTFUL ABILITY and CHARACTER are sent as government officials or employees to the Moro region.” (emphasis added)

Thomas further noted that Senator Sumulong “suggested and called for a largely SEPARATE GOVERNMENT for the Muslim regions of Mindanao and Sulu.” Unfortunately, the old Senator was no longer around to advise his granddaughter Cory Sumulong-Cojuangco vda de Aquino when she became Philippine President and instituted the re-making of the Constitution.

 

In 1957, the Commission on National Integration (CNI) was created to, well, “integrate” the Moros and other cultural minorities to the Philippine society. In 1975, President Marcos officially abolished the Commission.

 

As Thomas had pointed out, the range of Moro responses to Filipino development (integration) programs were: “Trial, Adoption, Rejection”. Moro responses remain the same today as it was then.

 

Multi-cultural nation-states can only survive if its programs and policies promote a multicultural, innovative and pluralist society where everyone is treated equally and has the same access to opportunities while maintaining their own culture, religion, language and general way of life and with all groups exercising as much autonomy and self-governance as it desires within the frame-work of a “nations-state”, i.e., many nations, one state.

 

The great advances in Physics show that we do not live in a mechanistic Newtonian universe but in a universe full of exciting probabilities. For there to be lasting peace in Mindanao and real progress and development for the whole Philippines, there should be new leaders who understand the new world we are in.

 

 

Since this is the start of the year, I look into my crystal ball and here is what I see:

 

Barack Obama to make great moves for a better world. Hopefully, he’ll do a Gorbachev, i.e., strip his country of imperialistic ambitions and create a more transparent (glasnost) American government. Perhaps he will give back some of the civil liberties the Americans had given up in the name of “Security”. He’ll close down the Guantanamo torture center.

 

Obama ran under the platform of Change. The time to make changes is this year.

 

End of US/UK - Iraq War

 

End of Afghanistan War. If this happens, it would not be because America wants to, but because the Taliban would have huge success in the battlefield and in Afghani politics.

 

Arab-Israeli War. The present Israeli “all-out war” in Gaza could escalate into a bigger war involving other Arabs. This year, a full-blown Arab-Israeli war is a great possibility.

 

There’ll be another world oil crisis brought about by the Middle east conflict.

 

Bangsa Moro struggle for self-determination to intensify and to reach new heights.

 

China vs US. The US would be increasingly paranoid over China.

 

Cuba vs US (End of Fidel Castro). US would try to redeem itself from the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

 

Great advances in the space industry. We will be seeing another first in the space industry.

 

There’ll be technological advances in airline industry but there would be plane crashes, too.

 

Great advances in Genetic Engineering.

 

There’ll be riots in Europe to protest government actions, esp, in England

 

Harry Potter movie another blockbuster

 

More breakthroughs in computer industry. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs will continue to lord over the industry

 

Films: sci-fi and socially relevant films to be popular.

 

Stock markets to crash further in the US, Europe and Japan

 

A British royal would probably marry or die. Anyway, it will be all over the media

 

More political – corruption scandals in Philippines

 

More massive anti-government demonstrations this year (2009) which would determine whether there would be elections in 2010 or not.

 

 

MAY 2009 USHER IN PROSPERITY AND PEACE FOR ALL!

 

 

 

Yesterday, Carmen Pedrosa in her opinion column in the Philippine Star daily newspaper wrote:

 

Combined search for peace and identity
FROM A DISTANCE By Carmen N. Pedrosa
Sunday, October 19, 2008

Of the many things said about the unfortunate Supreme Court decision on the MOA-AD, my favorites come from two sources: one from a Muslim, Jamal Ashley Yahya Abbas and the other from Lourdes Mastura, a Christian, married to Muslim Mike Mastura who was part of the panel in the KL meetings.

I like what both of them said and would like them to know that I have followed their suggestions. From Jamal Abbas I have embarked on a reading program on Filipino identity. My bedtime reading is the Looking for the Prehispanic Filipino by William Henry Scott and Filipino Prehistory by E. [sic] Landa Jocano. I confess that my convent education did not include this search. It is his thesis that our search for identity and peace settlement with the Bangsamoro can only be achieved if both Christians and Muslims discover their commonality when they fought colonialism.

Lourdes, I know personally, and take her cue that the Mindanao problem should be more widely known and understood. And may I add especially among media.

One reader of my column in the Internet reminded me that when Apolinario Mabini wrote those words of wisdom (placing more importance to principles than to constitutions) circumstances then were different. Oh? I will argue against that but it will take a book. The primacy of fundamental principles over a constitution especially a flawed one was true then as it is true now and it has nothing to do with 2010.

Another asked why we need to change the Constitution to accommodate a peace settlement. He ought to read up on the history of the peace process and answer his own question.

By the way, I have also taken up the seven volume The Philippine Insurrection against the United States by John R. M. Taylor to complement my search for Filipino identity. It may interest you to know that the documents compiled in the book give a good portrayal of Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo and his role in the history of our nation building.

 

 I am indeed very glad that Ms. Pedrosa, an influential member of Philippine society, has taken to heart my suggestion that there is a need to revisit history in search of the Indio-Filipino and Moro-Filipino identities in order to have lasting peace in the country. In my 7-part post, Quest for Peace and Identity, I wrote:

 

This paper will attempt to show that the Filipinos’ quests for Identity and Peace should be pursued together for only a clear and comprehensive understanding of the Christian Filipinos’ quest for Identity and the Moros’ desire to reclaim their sovereign Identity separate from the rest of the Filipinos can there be true peace in the land. And only a thorough understanding of history by all parties can bring about the needed change.

 

To achieve peace in Mindanao, there must be a clamor by the population. For that to happen, the average Filipino must understand the real circumstances surrounding the issue. They must understand the motivations behind every group. And to understand the real issues, one must go back to history.

 

 However, I also wrote:

 Philippine historiography is not exactly in a good state. Skeptics have categorized historians as those who lie, those who are mistaken and those who do not know. (Gilderhus1996) It is quite unfortunate that much of Philippine history was written by those in the first two categories. With regards to the Moros, Spanish historians (writing about Moro history) belonged to the first category; American historians belonged to the first and second; and Filipino historians belonged to all categories.

 

I suggested a new approach in historiography called microhistory. But for the non-historians, I suggest that they go book-hunting in libraries here and abroad. They must also try to analyze who the author is / was, his prejudices and biases, the circumstances surrounding the publication and most importantly, verify his facts.

 

I think it was Napoleon who said that "history is  fiction, with varying degrees of accuracy."

 

If I may suggest, I believe the starting point should be Antonio Pigafetta’s eyewitness account of Magellan’s "discovery" of the Islands and the "official" start of Filipino history. There are English translations and microfiche copies at the National Library. It is imperative that every Filipino should know that the Philippine natives did not just bow down to the conquistadors. They fought and massacred them.

 

Lapu-Lapu started the fight and killed Magellan. And then, what is not told to Filipinos for the last 500 years was that Rajah Humabon invited the conquistadors for a farewell meal and then massacred them. Only the handful who were left at the ship managed to escape. Pigafetta himself was lucky because he was wounded at the Battle of Mactan and therefore remained on the ship.The Spaniards did not come back until 50 years later.

 

Thus, from the very beginning, the Philippine indigenous peoples fought for freedom and homeland. They did not meekly bow down and accepted the foreigners’ beliefs. 

 

And 50 years later, the Islands’ natives again fought for Freedom led by the young Rajah Suleiman of Manila.

 

A re-reading of history might show that all the Philippine revolts written in history books as mere side stories or footnotes might actually represent the actual state of things then, especially in the eyes of the masses.

 

Any Indio-Filipino who would write a history of Mindanao since the Republic’s independence (1945) might show only the peaceful side with the Moro revolution as mere side story. Yet a Moro historian would probably show the Moro rebellion as the major thread in the Mindanao account.

 

Let me list down some of the other books that I recommend for those interested:

Majul, Cesar Adib (1973) Muslims in the Philippines Quezon City: UP Press

Laarhoven, Ruurdje (1989) The Triumph of Moro Diplomacy : The Maguindanao Sultanate in the 17th Century Quezon City: New Day Publishers

Che Man, W.K. (1990)  Muslim Separatism: The Moros of Southern Philippines and the Malays of Southern Thailand, Quezon City: AdM U Press

Dery, Luis Camara(1997) The Kris in Philippine History: A Study of the Impact of Moro Anti-Colonial Resistance 1571-1896 (self-published?)

Ileto, Reynaldo C.(1979) Pasyon and Revolution: Popular Movements in the Philippines 1840-1910, Ateneo de Manila University Press: QC

Rouvier, Gaston (1899) The War in the Philippines (1896-1898) in The War in the Philippines: As Reported by Two French Journalists translated by E. Aguilar Cruz (1994), Manila:National Historical Institute

Tan, Samuel (1973), The Muslim Armed Struggle in the Philippines, 1900-1941(PhD dissertation, Graduate School of Syracuse Univ, NY)