By Mohd. Musib M. Buat

(Speech delivered before the Conference-Workshop of the Mindanao Young Moro Leaders Conference, held at Isla Parilla Resort, Alabel, Sarangani Province on December 20-22, 2006).

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem…
Mr.Rahib Kudto, National President of UNYPAD, Organizers and Sponsors of this Conference, my young Brothers and Sisters, Assalamo Alaikum.

I came here to represent Brother Mohager Iqbal, Chair of the MILF Peace Panel to speak on the topic “Determining the Bangsamoro Youth Future through the right to Self- Determination Perspective� upon the kind invitation of your national President Mr. Kudto. I, however, took the liberty of rephrasing the title of the topic as “The Right to Self Determination and the Role of the Bangsamoro Youth�.

There is a need to discuss first the topic on the right to self determination before we take up the role of the Bangsamoro Youth.

SELF DETERMINATION

Self determination or the right to self determination (RSD) has evolved as a reaction against European colonialism and frequently against tyrannical rule. It developed at least before 1859 as an ethical concept and political principle by the world community against hundred of years of European colonialism. As universal ethical right of individuals, the concept attempted to translate self determination with political freedom, of religion and freedom of speech and apply these to people like the humanist concept of sovereignty. At times self-determination or as a concept is usually equated with secession or liberation from colonial rule. The ideal of self-determination found its early expression in the declaration of independence of the United States of America, thus bringing about the birth of the United States as a nation and the first early expression of secessionist ideals in modern history.

Technically, however, these two political concepts are not exactly the same. Secession specifically refers to territory, meaning to severe ties or association of a particular territory from the parent state or territory and to establish itself as separate or self-governing territory from actual or perceived colonial rule or domination by a colonial regime either via national liberation struggle or through the democratic and diplomatic process of decolonization under international law.

The right to self-determination refers to the concept or principle wherein a people or nation exercise the right to statehood or self-rule, and that such right has an equal right to sovereignty. The RSD is usually achieved either through peaceful negotiation between the sub-state and the parent state or via a democratic process known as referendum or plebiscite. The community of nations favors this latter process. It is in fact sanctioned under international law. The two concepts on the other hand overlap. For instance, when the right to self-determination is achieved or realized by peoples, nations, or communities via unilateral act of declaration of independence, not necessarily national struggle through liberation from colonial rule but by simply asserting the right to self-rule, it is known as “remedial secession�. This usually happens to historic peoples, nations, or communities who achieved self-rule or independence although not covered within the definition of peoples under colonial rule as defined under the United Nations decolonization program of 1960. The independence of East Timor is a classic example.

The following are some concepts and principles on self-determination under international law and practice. “..Self-determination is not a de stabilizing concept. Self-determination and democracy go hand in hand. If democracy means the rule of the people, by the people, then the principle of self-determination secures that no one people may rule another – and herein lies its enduring appeal…�.-(Nadesan Satyendra in Why Division, 1998).

“…the right of peoples to self-determination exists as such in modern international law, with all the consequences that flow there from…�.-(Hector Gross Espiell, Special Ropporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 1980).

“All peoples have the right of self-determination. By the virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development�.-(Article 1.1.-The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966).

Self determination also exists within a spectrum. It usually comes in the form of simple autonomy –enhanced autonomy - statehood within a federal union – Free State Association – or ultimately sovereign self-rule or independence.

The rights of all people, nations or communities to decide their final political status is an exercise of the right of self-determination. It is a universally recognized fundamental right of all peoples, nations, or communities (specifically historic communities like the peoples of Basque country, Quebec, Ireland, Ache and Malays of South Thailand, including that of the Bangsamoro people.)

The Bangsamoro people consider themselves as a separate nation (Moro Nation) distinct from the Filipinos. Their existence and identity as a distinct nation far antedated the so-called Filipino Nation. Prior to the Philippine revolution of 1896, the Christianized natives were referred to by the Spaniards as Indio’s. The Filipinos were Spaniards born in the Philippines. Moroland (Mindanao, Sulu, and Palawan geographical region) is their homeland and ancestral domain. As a political construct, this identity extends to the non-Islamized Indigenous peoples who are equally descendants of the original occupants of the Mindanao region prior to conquest or colonization. The latter, however, are given the freedom of choice to opt of becoming Bangsamoro nationals or remain under the neo-colonial rule of the Filipinos.

While it is true the Philippine government has extended citizenship to the Bangsamoro people, the issue of allegiance to the Philippine State as the only Christian nation in this part of the world is an unsettled issue? Until now many Bangsamoros cannot accept being called Filipino for having a derogatory connotation to them as an unconquered people nor were they under the colonial rule of Spain. They prefer to be called Moros or Muslims or better still Bangsamoro (Moro Nation).

On February 1, 1924, Moro leaders led by Sultan Mangigin of Maguindanao, petitioned the United States Congress either to remain as an unincorporated territory of the United States or be granted separate independence – their country to be known as Moro Nation (Bangsamoro). However, if their territories will be included as part of Philippine independence, along with Visayas and Luzon, they further petitioned the U.S. Congress to cause the holding of a plebiscite or referendum 50 years after the grant of Philippine Independence to decide by vote whether they should be part of the Philippine territory, or continue to be an unincorporated territory of United States, or given separate independence.

The 50 years grace period stated in that declaration of February 1, 1924, reckoned from the grant of Philippine independence on July 4, 1946, matured in 1996, the year that the GRP and MNLF entered into the Final Peace Agreement on September 2, 1996.

ROLE OF THE BANGSAMORO YOUTH

The Final Peace Agreement entered between the GRP and the MNLF on September 2, 1996 failed to fully address the legitimate grievances and aspirations of the Bangsamoro people. If it did, there would be no need for the MILF to resume peace negotiations with the Philippine government.

Let us briefly review these major grievances of the Bangsamoro people. Preparatory to the start of the peace talk in 1997, the MILF listed nine talking points which were later clustered into six talking points. During the resumption of the peace talk in June of 2001 held in Tripoli, Libya, the agenda was restated into three aspects, namely: Security, Rehabilitation and Development, and Ancestral Domain.

The latter was divided into four strands, namely: General Concepts, Territory, Natural Resources, and Governance. The remaining strand on Territory that will encompass the geographic jurisdiction of the proposed Bangsamoro Juridical Entity is the most contentious part of the on-going peace talks between the GRP and the MILF.

What would be the role of the Bangsamoro youth on challenges, if any?
Peace negotiation does not end with the signing of a peace agreement. The peace process is a continuing process. The implementation stage would involve great challenges than the mere crafting of an agreed text. Assuming that the Bangsamoro people would be granted self-rule, the road ahead would still be a long way to tackle. Institution building towards self-governance and nationhood or statehood would involve various factors. To what extent will central authority accede or grant to pave the way for institutional capacity building and to what extent are the Bangsamoro people, particularly the Moro youth willing to sacrifice to attain the reality towards full nationhood or statehood. Only the Bangsamoro leaders of tomorrow could answer this question. On the part of the Moro front (MILF), it can only prepare the way for the coming generation to realize that ideal of statehood a successful reality. The leaders and vanguards of the struggle will not be around forever. Aside from the support and cooperation of our people, we shall also take into account the support from the international community. Under international law there are certain standards to be complied by the new state in order to deserve international recognition. Among them are the observance of human rights and rule of law, protection of minorities, and a stable government.

The late Amir and Chairman, Shiek Salamat Hashim once said: “we have planted the seeds of Jihad (struggle) and even if we pass away, the Bangsamoro people will carry on that Jihad towards the attainment of the goals and objectives of our struggle.� The late Amir was presumably referring to Jihad Akbhar, (inner struggle), the higher form of Jihad which according to Muslim scholars is a continuous struggle by all Muslim to fight evil and injustice in the land, including the struggle against ones self from evil desires. The other manifestations of injustices refer not only to the suppression of the right to self determination but may as well include oppression and exploitation, ignorance and poverty, and the protection of the inherent rights of all peoples to live in peace and harmony with all creatures, meaning the physical and natural environment. In Islamic terms, the term for development is Taksiya. It means that there must be a balance between moral or spiritual development and material or economic development. In ideological terms, Islam is a mean between the extremes of capitalism and socialism. Greed, hoarding of wealth, vice and immoral conduct are prohibited. Wasteful exploitation of the environment is evil and injustice in Islam.

Attitudinal change is a virtue in Islam. The goal of the revolution, according to Pancho Villa, is like a beautiful goddess but after the revolution, the politicians take over and we slide back from where we started. The Moro youth must guard against some traditional politicians (Moro or non-Moro) from highjacking or taking over and reap the fruits of the Bangsamoro struggle. The poor and the humble are the true beneficiaries of the dividends of peace not the political elites, the rich and powerful and corrupt politicians. If the Moro youth will allow and tolerate them, the goals of the Bangsamoro struggle will be reaped by these vested interests. It is therefore high time that the Bangsamoro youth must embrace the ideology of the true and real struggle. The goal’s of Jihad is the continuous struggle to fight all forms of injustices in the land as well as against ones own unlimited desire and vanity for material things. Jihad does not necessarily mean armed struggle (Jihad Sagir - the lower form of Jihad), but through Jihad Akbhar or the higher form of Jihad.

Jihad Akbhar is waged by two principles, namely: Da’wah (Islamic Call) and Tarbiyah (education). This form of Jihad will led to nowhere without Da’wah and Tarbiyah. On the other hand, Jihad Akbhar will not flourish if we are complacent. Thus, defense of the Ummah (Islamic Community) whenever threatened by evil and injustice will have to necessarily involve Jihad Sagir (or Jihad Qital) as a matter of duty by all Muslims. Martyrdom or to die in defense of the Ummah against oppression is equally a virtue in Islam. Now, is the Moro youth prepared to embrace the ideology of Jihad? This is a question only the Moro youth can answer, not for the Moro Front (MILF).

INJUSTICES TO THE BANGSAMORO PEOPLE

Along with the right of self-determination, I shall take this opportunity to briefly review some of the major grievances of the Bangsamoro people.
The Moro grievances can be summed up into one term – INJUSTICE! By this we mean the following:

? Injustice to the Moro identity;
? Injustice to Moro political sovereignty;
? Injustice to Moro ancestral territory; and
? Injustice to Moro integral development.

The Bangsamoro people are a historic community with a definite territory and being the First Nation that came into being in this part of the Malayan archipelago. They were a sovereign nation-state originally exercised through the suzerainty of the Moro sultanates and datuships. They had trade and commercial relations with foreign nations and had entered into treaties of amity with European powers. They were the first to have established a highly organized political system and governments independent of the Spanish colonial administration. It was the United States colonial regime who changed this political and social order and superimposed over them the Moro Province and later by the Department of Mindanao and Sulu.

While the Philippine Constitution of the of 1987 recognizes the “right of self determination� under Article II, Section 7 on State Policies, this particular principle is restricted by national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national interest.

The same Constitution under Article II, Section 1 on Declaration of Principles “…adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom, cooperation, unity with all nations.� This is another restricted principle under the Philippine constitution. As interpreted by the Supreme Court, treaties entered into by the Philippines have the same category as domestic laws and as such like any legislation enacted by Congress, these treaties could be amended. This interpretation runs counter to the principle of pacta sunt servanda whereby the state parties are duty bound to honor their treaty obligations under treaties entered into. Thus, the Supreme Court in the Bayan case when the constitutionality of the VFA was raised sustained the principle of pacta sunt servanda under international law. This was the reason why the MILF Peace Panel during the resumption of he peace talks in Tripoli, Libya registered its objection to use the Philippine constitution as the framework of negotiation. The MILF Panel preferred the adherence by the Parties on International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the internationally recognized Human Rights instruments in defining the relations between the Philippine Government and the Bangsamoro people with respect, among others, their fundamental right to determine their future political status, which specifically refers to the right to self-determination. (See GRP-MILF Tripoli Agreement on Peace of June 2001).

Speaking of territorial integrity, this is another contentious concept. It is a fact that in the definition of Philippine territory with particular reference to historic rights under the 1935 Philippine constitution, the various Moro treaties entered into by the Moro suzerains with foreign powers are cited as justification. Ironically, while the Philippines invoke historic rights as basis in defining Philippine territory, it has refused to respect the rights of the Bangsamoro people to self-determination over their historic homeland and territory. The inclusion of the Moro territories in the definition of Philippine territory in the Treaty of Paris is one of the injustices to the Bangsamoro territorial integrity. How could Spain legally cede to America Moroland which Spain never had any sovereignty or territorial possession, nor the plebiscitary consent of its inhabitants?

Another major injustice to Bangsamoro territorial integrity that triggered the present Mindanao conflict is the policy of the government initially started during the American colonial regime that had its peak under the Commonwealth government the agricultural colonization of the Mindanao-Sulu and Palawan region by Christian Filipino migrant-settlers from the Visayas and Luzon through government sponsorship and the passage of various land confiscatory laws. This was briefly interrupted by the Second World War and resumed during the postwar period under the Philippine Republic up to the present. At the time of conquest or colonization by America in 1898 the Bangsamoro people owned 98 percent of the lands in the Mindanao region. The passage of various land confiscatory laws along with the resettlement of Christian Filipino migrant-settlers from the north steadily dispossessed the native inhabitants of Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan. All the lands in the Mindanao region were declared by law as forming part of the public domain despite the fact that these lands are Pusaka or ancestral lands of the Bangsamoro people since time immemorial as recognized under various Moro treaties with foreign nations. This injustice to the Bangsamoro people is one of the main causes for their marginalization and minoritization in their own homeland and ancestral territory in Moroland. The Bangsamoro people have remained under state of neo-colonialism. From the Moro perspective the Philippine Republic continue to act like a colonial power in dealing with the Moros of Mindanao. The common presence of Military occupation of Moroland is reminiscence of previous colonial regimes. Indeed, nothing changed.

In terms of budgetary allocation, Mindanao has the lowest share of the national budget thereby depriving its people of integral development. Its rich and vast natural resources are exploited by multinationals and Filipino corporate elites, depriving its native peoples of their natural wealth. The Bangsamoro people have come of age. They want to chart their own destiny. If they are allowed to develop their own country and homeland, they honestly believe that it will sustain its development. In economic terms, the billions of pesos spent for military operations in Mindanao and Sulu should have been spent to alleviate poverty among poor Filipinos.

Thank you and Wassalamu Alaikum. Allaho Akbhar!