This essay was prepared for the lectures delivered at Deconstructing Discourse and Activist Retooling Programme: The Chandra Muzaffar Speaker Tour organised by Focus on The Global South Philippines from 14 to 18 November 2011 in Metro Manila and Davao City, Philippines.
In this paper on the struggle for self-determination in the context of the Republic of the Philippines, I shall focus more upon the Bangsamoro than the Indigenous Peoples (IPs) partly because one is a little more familiar with the former rather than the latter.
I shall:-
Provide an historical overview of the struggles of both groups;
Examine attempts at conflict resolution;
Reflect upon the central issues in the conflicts; and
Analyse possible solutions.
Overview.
I shall begin with the IPs. There are 14 to 17 million IPs, scattered among 110 ethno-linguistic groups, mainly concentrated in the Cordillera Administrative Region of Luzon( 33%) and Mindanao ( 61%). Once cohesive, viable communities, the IPs were emasculated by Spanish colonialism which usurped their lands and marginalised their cultures and knowledge systems. US colonialism which followed also weakened the IPs’ hold on their lands and provided access to US agricultural corporations. Though independent Philippines made some amendments to Spanish and US colonial laws, ‘development’ in the form of mining, logging, commercial plantations, mega dams and tourism have not only dislocated and displaced IPs but also destroyed their means of sustenance.
The Bangsamoro struggle for self-determination (SD) which began in the 16th century has been described as perhaps the longest SD struggle in history. About 5 to 6 million in number, the Bangsamoro are Muslims drawn from 13 ethno-linguistic tribes largely in Mindanao. The Maguindanaons, the Maranaos and the Tausogs are the main groups. As a people who constituted independent, flourishing sultanates that held sway over large parts of what is today the Philippines, the Bangsamoro from the very beginning resisted Spanish colonial rule. Like the Spaniards, the US colonisers also used massive military force to try to subjugate the Bangsamoro. They exploited Mindanao’s rich natural resources. This has continued in the post-colonial period exacerbated by the large-scale importation of Filipino settlers from other parts of the country to Mindanao. It is one of the primary causes of war, violence and conflict in that island— a conflict which is sometimes erroneously perceived as a Christian-Muslim conflict.
It is this conflict that has spawned organisations like the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) which challenged the authority of Manila for 25 years (1971-1996) and espoused secession. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) which is now at the forefront of the Bangsamoro struggle advocates a sub-state within the Republic of the Philippines that would protect the Moro people’s identity and integrity. There is also the terrorist Abu Sayyaf which claims to be the champion of an Islamic state.
Conflict Resolution.
For the IPs, the most significant legislation aimed at addressing their legitimate grievances is the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) of 1997. This law not only provides a broad and all-encompassing definition of the ancestral domains of the IPs but also allows for the settlement of their land claims. While there has been some progress, in reality the rights of the indigenous peoples have not always been upheld largely because of the encroachment of powerful vested interests which I have already alluded to. Because they do not possess any economic clout and lack political representation, the IPs of the Philippines, like IPs all over the world, are among the nation’s poorest and have limited access to basic social services, health care facilities and education. Besides, they are also caught in the crossfire of the 40 year-old armed conflict in Mindanao between the Bangsamoro and the Philippines Government.
In the case of the Bangsamoro, their centuries-long quest for nationhood morphed into an organised armed struggle from the early seventies. It is alleged that more than 200,000 lives have been lost in this conflict and tens of thousands of refugees have fled mainly to Sabah in Malaysia. It was partly because of the human and material costs of the war that the Ferdinand Marcos government signed an agreement with the MNLF known as the Tripoli Agreement of 1976, brokered to an extent by the late Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi. The Tripoli Agreement provided for the creation of two autonomous Muslim regions through negotiations and a plebiscite.
The Agreement did not lead to the cessation of armed conflict partly because of a lack of trust between the MNLF and the Government and partly because of the latter’s fear of losing territorial control and authority as a result of the implementation of the provisions on autonomy. Successor governments under Cory Aquino, Fidel Ramos and Joseph Estrada also attempted to implement the Tripoli Agreement. In fact, in 1996, the MNLF signed the Final Peace Agreement (FPA) with the Government but it was rejected by the MILF which by that time had much more grassroots support than the MNLF. The MILF argued that the FPA did not deal with the core of the Bangsamoro problem which is the usurpation of the Moros’ ancestral homeland. Ancestral domain therefore lies at the heart of the struggle for self-determination.
The MILF and the Government of the Philippines made an attempt to resolve this thorny issue in negotiations held in Kuala Lumpur in the middle of 2008. They agreed that 700 villages in Mindanao would conduct a referendum within 12 months to decide whether they would want to join the Muslim homeland. The signing of the agreement was set for August 5 2008 and a formal peace deal was scheduled to be concluded in November 2009. However there was tremendous opposition to the accord from a variety of groups, including leading Senators who felt it would lead to the dismemberment of the State. A petition was filed in the Supreme Court of the Philippines seeking to restrain the Government of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo from signing the accord. The Supreme Court granted the petition on the basis of a 8-7 vote and effectively killed the move to settle the ancestral domain issue. Now under a new President, Benigno Aquino 111, peace talks have resumed on the question of ancestral domain and other related matters.
Central Issues.
In a sense, the challenge facing IPs in the Philippines is related to the central issue in governance everywhere: powerful vested interests subverting the rights of the weak and the vulnerable. This is what happens when the State is subservient to the strong, often embodied in big capital and politically well-connected elites. Development becomes an ideology inextricably intertwined with elite interests. It is top-down in character often marginalising the grass-roots.
It is not just the orientation of the State and the nature of capitalist development that are antithetical to the well-being of IPs. The dominant worldview of society is prejudiced and pejorative towards IPs and their lifestyles, values and knowledge systems. They are seen as a relic of the past whose relevance to the present is conditional upon their jettisoning their outmoded ways and embracing wholeheartedly the modern world of economic growth, cut-throat competition and materialistic affluence.
As with the IPs, many of the issues that are at the crux and core of the Bangsamoro quest for self-determination parallel the challenges confronting other communities struggling for autonomy and freedom in other parts of the world. The Philippine State regards itself — like states everywhere— as the custodian of the nation’s territorial integrity. Any bid by a component element of the nation to secede or even to assert its autonomy would be an outright affront to the custodian. Oftentimes it would be repelled by force, by all the coercive power at the command of the men and women who helm the state.
The State also sees itself as the protector of the nation’s identity— an identity that is explicitly or implicitly equated with the religion and culture of the majority community or the dominant elites. Given this equation, there is a tendency to view religious or cultural minorities as groups that are not quite within the national fold. This perception becomes even more negative when the minority in question resists assimilation, or worse, opposes the dominant power of the majority.
If anything has aggravated further this negative perception, it is the fact that the Bangsamoro are Muslims. From the time of the Spanish colonisers, caricaturing and demonising Muslims and Islam has been pervasive among a segment of the Philippine population. The Spaniards were already deeply antagonistic towards the religion and its followers even before they began to colonise the Philippines. This antagonism was due in part to their conquest by the Muslims— the Moors as the Spaniards called them— in the early part of the eighth century and the subsequent defeat of the European crusaders at the hands of the Muslims. Stereotypes and prejudices against Muslims spawned during Spanish rule and perpetuated and reinforced through American colonialism have now become part of contemporary Philippine folklore.
As a reaction, sections of the Bangsamoro have built up their own stockpile of communal slurs and slanders against the majority Christians. This negative stereotyping on both sides has widened the chasm between the majority and the minority communities. It is undoubtedly one of the formidable barriers that will have to be overcome in order to develop and strengthen majority-minority ties in the Philippines.
Possible Solutions.
For the Indigenous Peoples of the Philippines exposing the injustices they suffer from and the human rights violations against them would be an important aspect of the quest for a solution to their problem. In recent years the alternative media have played a significant role in this. Seeking remedies through the courts is yet another avenue available to the IPs. Given the powerful vested interests arraigned against them, the IPs are justifiably cautious in adopting this approach.
IPs should also perhaps share information and analysis about their situation with other civil society groups in the ASEAN region on a much more systematic and organised manner. Since there are also groups championing the cause of indigenous peoples in a number of ASEAN countries, establishing links with them should be priority. ASEAN wide mobilisation of public opinion on some of the concrete challenges facing IPs in the Philippines and in other ASEAN countries facilitated by the alternative media would bring the IPs struggle to a higher level.
Indeed, progressive elements in civil society, the media and the universities in ASEAN should view the IPs struggle as a critical entry-point for raising fundamental concerns about the nature of development and the role of grass-roots communities in the region. As we have hinted, the developmental orientation of governments in ASEAN, including the Philippines, is seriously flawed, what with their emphasis upon perpetuating the wealth and power of the elite stratum of society. We have also suggested that there may be elements in the worldview and knowledge system of the IPs that are worth harnessing if we are sincere about transforming society guided by spiritual and moral values.
In fact, there is greater realisation of the fatal weaknesses in our dominant capitalist system today compared to the last 20 years—- which is why certain IPs’ values related to sharing and giving have acquired a new meaning in the search for alternatives. This should spur those of us who appreciate the role and contribution of indigenous peoples and cultures to human civilisation to strive harder for their cause. By the same token, the environmental crisis whose impact upon the human family and all other life-forms, is massive has compelled thinking, caring individuals everywhere to pay serious attention to the deep relationship that indigenous peoples had forged— and continue to sustain— with nature. More and more people now acknowledge that we ‘moderns’ have a lot to learn from them.
If the relevance of the IPs experience to the present offers the hope that their grievances will be attended to by the rest of society, the onerous burden of a long and costly war has convinced both the Government and the leaders of the Bangsamoro that they must resolve the conflict sooner than later. This is one of the main reasons why every Philippine President in the last 35 years from Marcos to Aquino 111 has sought to negotiate with the MNLF or the MILF. It is only through negotiations that a peace settlement will be achieved.
The MILF and its associates now recognise that the struggle for self-determination need not always culminate in an independent, sovereign state. Besides, secession— as we have alluded to— is anathema to the Philippine Government. Full-fledged autonomy, a sort of internal self-determination, is perhaps the only feasible solution.
The present Government appears to accept the principle of autonomy though it has not spelt out its contents and contours. There is some fear that autonomy will encourage fissiparous tendencies and even lead to the break-up of the Philippine State. Hence, the opposition of most political leaders and a substantial portion of the populace to the Ancestral Domain Accord of 2008.
Philippine state and society will have to be assured that genuine autonomy that not only allows the Bangsamoro to elect their own assembly with the powers of decision-making but also guarantees effective control over their lands and other natural resources, is in the larger interest of the Philippine nation. It is very likely that such autonomy will bring to an end the conflict, violence and war that have bedevilled Philippine society for so long. The nation will be free to concentrate on enhancing the dignity and well-being of all its citizens. Relations between the majority and minority communities, between Christians and Muslims will also enter a new era—- unencumbered by distrust and suspicion, hatred and antagonism. Hopefully, it will lead eventually to greater social cohesion and religious harmony.
To convince Filipinos of the importance of genuine autonomy, groups and individuals committed to this goal will have to target the majority, Christian community. Their effectiveness would be enhanced if they came from the majority community itself. Unfortunately, there are not enough such groups and individuals. It is only when those in the majority community who regard genuine autonomy for the Bangsamoro as their mission in life reach a critical mass that the tide will begin to change. When a sizeable segment of society, including the intelligentsia, pushes forward a specific agenda with vigour and energy in a democracy, the powers-that-be will have to respond.
Filipinos from the majority and minority communities dedicated to genuine autonomy for the Bangsamoros should carry their campaign beyond the shores of the Philippines. They should mobilise support from the entire ASEAN family. If thousands and thousands of men and women in each ASEAN state sign a collective petition demanding that Manila accords genuine autonomy to the Bangsamoro , their government will have to sit up and take notice. Of course, a mass signature campaign alone may not be enough to compel Manila to act. Other more radical but peaceful forms of action may be necessary. But it is a step that is worth taking—- on behalf of the longest struggle for self- determination in history.