Opening statement of Mohagher Iqbal, chairman of the MILF Peace Panel, during the 26th GPH-MILF Peace Talks held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from March 19-21, 2012.

The Clear Path Without Branches

         We are now in the last month of the first quarter of the year 2012, the timeline for signing the comprehensive compact between the MILF and the Government of the Philippines (GPH) which our honorable counterpart from the GPH had boldly claimed sometime in 2011. Honestly, we were fascinated by such boldness, which we know is very much possible if the Aquino administration is really committed to solve the age-old Moro Question and the armed conflict in Mindanao, following his “Matuwid Na Daan” or “Straight Path” policy, which I solemnly hope is the “Right Path”. 

Why I say this is possible in a straight path policy of any just or rightly-guided leader, if we view this policy in the light of the Islamic principles of “Siratal mustaquim”. In the daily prayers of Muslims, they recite the Surah Al-Fatiha, 17 times in five obligatory prayers and at least 17 in optional prayers, which they solemnly ask for guidance to the straight path. This is the first chapter of the Qur'an, which has seven verses that are all prayers for Allah's guidance, and for stressing on His Lordship and Mercy. 

Siratal Mustaquim is the clear path without branches, according to the language of the Qur’an. Hence the Qur’an would describe the honest person as being straight and the wicked person as being crooked, which includes one who does not fulfill promises and commitments made with fellow human beings. 

It is on this premise that I am hopeful that under the administration of President Aquino the Moro Question and the armed conflict in Mindanao will finally be put to rest.  It is also on this premise that I believe our honorable counterpart in the GPH would deal with us in straight-forward manner; meaning, what has been committed, as a product of honest discussion, will be pursued and followed sincerely, including signing it without delay. From it we can move forward with much trust and confidence, as we confront the most contentious issues of the negotiation.

Surely and without doubt, the comprehensive compact will not be signed now or perhaps even in April, despite the claim of the honorable Secretary Teresita “Ging” Deles-Quintos, banking on “miracle” to happen. The greater fear is that we might not even sign it at all if we are not firm on our resolve to push hard in our negotiation. Sad to note, however, that within the first two years of the Aquino administration, we have not signed anything of great consequence that we can show to our people and the world that indeed there is big happening in the current peace negotiation. I am afraid that we might not be as productive as compared to the times of Secretary Silvestre Afable III, Secretary Rodolfo Garcia, and Ambassador Rafael Seguis, notwithstanding the fact that we have a counterpart in the GPH which is led by a brilliant lawyer and a dean of law at that.

Honestly speaking, despite the stark picture of what is really happening in the negotiation, Central Mindanao provinces are dotted with placards and streamers, obviously coming from the military, proclaiming for the imminent coming of peace in Mindanao. While we congratulate the military for this support of peace in Mindanao; in fact, it is also our clamor, we are also perplexed no end, because such excessive building up of public expectation, will have serious backlash if at the end, there will be no signing. I don’t know why the military is in such frenzy for proclaiming that peace is forthcoming in Mindanao. We do not question their motive, but perhaps there is a communication gap between those in charge of the negotiation and those on the ground. I do not want to view it as a deliberate act for some special effects of unknown reason. Unless we succeed in the current negotiation, this one-sided portrayal of the positive side of the negotiation will only create frustration amongst our people and the possible negative backlash is unimaginable.

Up till today, I hope that the Aquino administration is still pursuing the first best option, which is to sign an agreement with the MILF, and the second best option, which is merely to reform the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), is not being pursued by the government in replacement of the negotiated political settlement of the Moro Question and the armed conflict in Mindanao. And clearly if the first is the option of the government, then we can expect seriousness in the current peace talks. But if the second is now the option, then it is very easy to see. Expect commitment made to be changed randomly.

Lastly, it is perhaps of interests to you that we share of our historic trip to Rome, Italy from March 5-8 upon the invitation of the Community of Sant'Egidio, which is a Christian community that is officially recognized by the Holy See as a “Church public lay association". It claims 50,000 members in more than 70 countries. It is also recognized by the United Nations within the ECOSOC.

Aside from being fascinated by the grandeur of Rome, we were also struck by the openness of the group for religious dialogues and their willingness to take part in conflict resolutions. They have welcomed us with open arms and they are seriously considering reaching out to the Philippine government and the Catholic Church in the Philippines, the two major players in shaping the direction of this state. This group has a good track record in settlement of conflicts from Africa to Bosnia Herzegovina, and to South America. They played the lead role in the settling of the bloody conflict in Mozambique in Africa where 1,000,000 died of starvation and of the fighting. The peace pact that ended this conflict was signed right at the room where we were received by their key leaders led by its president, Professor Marco Impagliazzo, 47, who is teaching history at the university for Foreigners of Perugia, and is now serving his second term as president. 

From Rome, we proceeded to Catalonia upon the invitation of Mr. Kristian Herbolzheimer of the Conciliation Resources, a member of the International Contact Group (ICG). With our own eyes, we were able to see how former monarchial and later dictatorial Spain has now transformed itself into more federal rather than unitary. Madrid had agreed to grant more and more autonomous powers to the 17 regions especially Catalonia and the Basque Country.  We have also talked to the movers of change in the Catalan political landscape and those who represent the status quo. Throughout our four-day visit, we never felt the stigma of the past and the curse of the 320 Moro-Spanish War in Mindanao. And Madrid, to our surprise, is at peace in allowing the Catalans to pursue their right to identity, language, and for a homeland. But still one of the battle lines of continuous hard bargaining is about the right to tax, which Madrid refuses to budge an inch to Catalan to this day.  

We also had a side trip to Granada where that famous Alhambra Palace of the Moorish King is situated. We saw the grandeur of the palace, the greatness of the architecture, and the impregnable fort where the last battle between the Moors and Catholic army was fought that resulted in the decisive defeat of the first, which ended their almost 800 years rule in Spain. It is an experience of a life-time that brought us back in time, as Atty. Datu Michael Mastura, one ustadz, and I slowly made our way slowly through the crowd of mostly Japanese tourists, to examine every corner and room of the fancied palace.

To the Moros in Mindanao, this side trip is very important. Had not the Moors been defeated in Spain, the Spaniards would not have come to the Philippines and probably the whole of it would have become Muslims, because at the coming of Spain in 1570, Manila and Tondo were firmly under Moro hegemony. There were also many areas in Visayas and Luzon held by Moros especially Batangas, Mindoro, and Pampanga. But these are all water under the bridge. History has it that the unconquered is now at the mercy of the conquered. This is what we are trying to correct in this negotiation: the great imbalance of the totality of relationship between the Philippine state and the Moros of Mindanao.

On this note, I thank everyone in this session hall for lending me his or her ear as we made a rundown of what I believe as the true state of this 15-year old GPH-MILF peace negotiation in Mindanao.

Thank you and good day!

-----------------

Opening statement of Mohagher Iqbal, chairman of the MILF Peace Panel, during the 26th GPH-MILF Peace Talks held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia from March 19-21, 2012.

Bangsamoro Brief

Bangsamoro Brief

By Maulana M. Alonto

There is no need to go into the lengthy historical narrative that underpins the conflict in Mindanao and Sulu as this has been the subject of the discourse that has been there with us since time immemorial.

What is imperative, however, is that in the collective quest to find a peaceful political resolution to this conflict, it behooves on us to understand its character, which, for quite some time has been erroneously called the ‘Moro Problem’ but which should properly be addressed as the ‘Bangsamoro Question’.

Positing it in this perspective rectifies the established notion and convention that it was the Moros who created this conflict and are not the wholesale victims of the colonialist and imperialist wars began by the Spaniards, the Americans and now the Filipinos. With this as a starting point, it would be easier to view this conflict objectively and clearly and, as such, proceed towards addressing its root cause, thus, allowing the formulation of a more permanent solution that is precisely attuned to righting the historical and current injustices committed on the Bangsamoro people.

In this context, the logical question that has to be asked is: what is the Bangsamoro Question?

In the language of international conflict resolution, the Bangsamoro Question is categorized as a sovereignty-based conflict. To be more precise, it is a conflict between two colliding principles, or ideologies if you may: the ideology of ‘Philippine sovereignty and territorial integrity’ on one hand, and the right of the Bangsamoro people to self-determination on the other.

The collision arose when the Philippine state, as the veritable successor-in-interest to Spanish colonialism and early 20^th century American imperialism, imposed and applied its ideology of ‘Philippine sovereignty and territorial integrity’ on the Bangsamoro people, thereby ignoring historical and moral factors that should - using the yardstick of what is right and wrong – not have spawned this conflict that is without question debilitating to both the Filipino people and the Bangsamoro people.

It is, on the other hand, the dictates of defense – defense of their freedoms, their homeland, their identity, their culture and Islamic faith – that this imposition by the Philippine State was, and is, now being met and confronted by armed resistance of the Bangsamoro people underpinned by their reassertion of the right of colonized and captive peoples and nations to self-determination and freedom recognized by international law and the universal principles of human rights.

Since the right of a modern nation-state, such as the Philippine state, to preserve and defend its national sovereignty and territorial integrity is also recognized by international law, it would seem that the sovereignty-based conflict that confronts us is complicated.

This perceived complication as seen from and by the Philippine side, however, is not grounded on firm historical antecedents simply because of the gross injustice surrounding the annexation of the Bangsamoro people and their homeland into the Philippine State without their plebiscitary consent initially in the 1935 Philippine Commonwealth and finally in the grant of Philippine independence by the US government in 1946. Looking farther back, neither would the Treaty of Paris of 1898 justify the inclusion of the Bangsamoro homeland into the Philippine islands hitherto possessed by Spain and sold to the Americans simply because Spain never exercised colonial suzerainty over the Bangsamoro people.

Simply put, the facts of history put a big question mark on the applicability of the Philippine State’s right to exercise that principle of ‘Philippine national sovereignty and territorial integrity’ with respect to the Bangsamoro people and their posterity.

At this juncture, Moro right to self-determination should be seen not only as a political issue but a big moral issue that underscores the question of justice. It is a question that involves the existing colonial relationship between the Philippine State and the Bangsamoro people – an unjust relationship that has given birth to the conflict that hounds us to this very day.

Today, the MILF and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GPH) are engaged in peace negotiation. To the MILF, the negotiation has as its guiding compass the restructuring and redefining of the totality of colonial relationship between the Philippine State and the Bangsamoro people. Addressing the root cause of the Bangsamoro Question, insofar as the MILF is concerned, must be the primordial objective of the negotiation without which the conflict will never end and will go on for generations.

However, the MILF also believes that midway between the right of the Philippine State to preserve its ‘national sovereignty and territorial integrity’ on one hand and Bangsamoro right to self-determination (which would cover a wide range of political options including political independence) on the other, is a compromise political formula sourced out from paradigms of similar sovereignty-based conflicts around the globe.

This compromise political formula necessitates the creation of a Bangsamoro state or sub-state within the larger framework of Philippine statehood. Such a political arrangement precludes outright separatism but restructures Philippine State-Bangsamoro colonial relationship into one that institutionalizes parity of esteem between the two parties by way of association similar to what has been successfully adopted by other states which were in conflict with their captive peoples and nations.

We are in full agreement with this compromise political formula presented by the MILF to the GPH on the negotiating table. This is the last card, so to speak, that would allow, short of political independence, the Bangsamoro people the space and freedom to reassume their Bangsamoro identity, preserve what is left of their ancestral homeland, exercise that right to genuinely govern it, recover control of their natural resources within their homeland for their development and progress, and finally to live according to their Islamic way of life.

Should this be absent, we have no other option, no other choice, but to continue the Moro liberation struggle but this time for complete independence.

-end-