By: ROMY ELUSFA
DATU PIANG, Maguindanao – After a week of the ongoing accompaniment mission with the evacuees here, peace groups came up with a dozen set of recommendations to address the plight of the over 30,000 refugees, which include a call for government and private organizations to conduct health missions and trauma healing sessions.
The recommendation, which surfaced during an assessment held at the parish convent here, was based on the group’s findings that “many children and aged are sick, some of them already died in the evacuation center and the continuing deterioration of the evacuees’ health condition.”
The ongoing accompaniment mission organized by the Bantay Ceasefire is joined by the Peacebuilders Community, Initiatives for International Dialogue, OMI (Oblates of Mary Immaculate) Disaster Response Team and the Mindanao Peoples’ Caucus.
Records of the Bantay Ceasefire show that since the war started in August of last year, there were already 111 civilian casualties, 95 of them died and 16 were injured. Of the 95 death, 40 are children and infants. The Bantay Ceasefire also noted 471 houses burned in this town alone.
Aside from calling for private and government organizations to address the health problems at the evacuation center, the Mission also urged international donors to intervene by way of helping provide food and shelter for the evacuees.
Last week, the MPC issued a statement calling for a stop to the “food blockade” after 100 bags of rice of the OMI Disaster Response Team was held by soldiers.
Earlier, 11 truck-loads of rice the International Committee on the Red Cross was supposed to deliver in Datu Piang was also held at an Army check point. The Army said it was only concerned with the safety of those supposed to distribute the rations following alleged threats of MILF harassment.
Yul Olaya, coordinator of the Bantay Ceasefire, explained that many new evacuees who vacated their homes in May and early this month have yet to receive rations from humanitarian organizations who are still in the process of listing up the new evacuees.
In Barangay Macasendig alone of neighboring Midsayap town, the Bantay Ceasefire recorded over 400 new evacuees who fled the village of Reina Regente in this municipality. Some 92 houses were burned.
The recommendation of the group also included the need to educate the evacuees of their rights provided by the United Nations Guiding Principles on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).
Olaya said they would try to invite the Commission on Human Right and other humanitarian organizations to conduct “teach-ins” at the evacuation centers so that “evacuees will know their rights as IDPs.”
“There are so many complaints about abuses against civilians who do not even know that their fundamental rights had already been transgressed,” he said.
The Mission said they will sustain their presence here and conduct “series of dialogues with stakeholders, hoping we could build a wide network of organizations jointly addressing the plight of the bakwits.”
While they are in this town, the Mission participants, numbering more than 40, said they will also try to mobilize more volunteers to replicate the accompaniment mission here in other refugee camps in neighboring towns of Datu Piang.
“We are organizing a similar mission in the towns of Guindulongan, Talayan, Datu Saudi and other towns of Maguindanao where there are also plenty of evacuees,” Olaya said.
While they are addressing the plight of the evacuees, the mission participants said that their “counterparts and partners” in the cities of Cotabato and Davao, and in Manila, will also “aggressively lobby for the resumptions of the peace talks between the government and the MILF, which collapsed after the Supreme Court did not allow the government negotiators to sign the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain. The MOA-AD, a product of a four-year negotiation between the two parties, was subsequently declared unconstitutional by the High Court.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Obama talks on America's relationship with Muslim World
US President Barack Obama delivered a speech on America's relationship with the Muslim World in Cairo, Egypt last June 4.
Here is the text of President Obama's speech:
I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.
We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."
Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.
This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.
That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.
In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.
Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.
We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.
Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."
Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.
America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.
The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.
The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.
I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.
Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.
I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.
This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.
I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.
The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."
The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."
The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.
Here is the text of President Obama's speech:
I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University has been a source of Egypt's advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum.
We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights. This has bred more fear and mistrust.
So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.
I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth." That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
As a student of history, I also know civilization's debt to Islam. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe's Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.
I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America's story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims." And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.
So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: "Out of many, one."
Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.
Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one's religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.
So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.
Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.
This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.
That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.
The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.
In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.
The situation in Afghanistan demonstrates America's goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.
Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.
That's why we're partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America's commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.
We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.
Let me also address the issue of Iraq. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: "I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be."
Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources. Iraq's sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq's democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.
And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.
So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.
The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.
America's strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.
Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel's founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
That is in Israel's interest, Palestine's interest, America's interest, and the world's interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.
Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It's a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.
Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist.
At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel's right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine's. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.
Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel's security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.
Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel's legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.
America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.
Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.
The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons.
This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.
It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America's interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.
I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.
The fourth issue that I will address is democracy.
I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.
That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.
There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.
This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.
Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.
Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one's own faith by the rejection of another's. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.
Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.
Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah's Interfaith dialogue and Turkey's leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.
The sixth issue that I want to address is women's rights.
I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear: issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.
Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.
I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.
But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.
This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.
On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.
On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.
On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.
All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.
The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God's children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together.
I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn't worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.
All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.
It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn't new; that isn't black or white or brown; that isn't Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It's a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It's a faith in other people, and it's what brought me here today.
We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.
The Holy Koran tells us, "O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another."
The Talmud tells us: "The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace."
The Holy Bible tells us, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."
The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God's vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God's peace be upon you.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Humanitarian Crisis in Datu Piang
By ROMY ELUSFA
DATU PIANG, Maguindanao – As the situation of evacuees in refugee camps here continues to worsen with people starving and dying, another wave of over 200 families fled their homes on May 31, adding to the 6,277 evacuee-families reported last week.
The over 200 families fled Barangay Reyna Regente of this town to seek refuge under the trees in the village of Macasendig in neighboring town of Midsayap in North Cotabato.
Fr. Eduardo Vasquez, OMI, parish priest here, and his over 30 youth volunteers under the OMI Disaster Response Team, immediately distributed relief goods and plastic laminated sacks for the shanties that the evacuees built under a woody area in Macasendig.
Fr. Vasquez said that the evacuation was triggered by an encounter between government militias and Moro guerrillas of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the burning of houses of civilians in May 31.
Noraida Musa, an evacuee who joined the queue for rice rations, said in vernacular that “there are more than 100 houses of civilians burned” by armed men. Asked who the armed men were, she said: “Cafgus (Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit) and CVOs (Civilian Volunteer Organization), both are government militias.
Yul Olaya, coordinator of the Bantay Ceasefire, a community-based grassroots organization actively monitoring the implementation of the ceasefire agreement between the government and the MILF, said his group was able to count 92 houses burned.
This developed after evacuees in Nunangan village in the neighbor town of Talayan, also in Maguindanao, filed at the Commission on Human Rights in Region 12 “destructive arson” cases against soldiers they alleged were behind the torching of some 150 houses located at the public market of the community last May 7.
In their sworn statements, the complainants alleged that the soldiers ordered them (civilians) to vacate the community before the torching of their dwellings.
Meanwhile, the Mindanao Peoples Caucus (MPC), a tri-people organization actively campaigning for peace advocacy in Mindanao, denounced the Army for the burning of houses of civilians.
In an MPC statement, titled “Stop the Food Blockade,” the MPC said: “Nearly a year since military operations were launched against two field commanders of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the commanders are still on the loose and the civilians are suffering the brunt of war: children, pregnant women, teachers, students, the civilian population in Maguindanao.”
The government, since August last year, has been running after so-called “lawless MILF” Commanders Ameril Umbra Kato, Abdulrahman Macapaar, alias Commander Bravo, and one Commander Mercury who are both operating in two Lanao provinces, and, Wahid Tundok, also in Maguindanao.
“For more than ten months now, these internally displaced persons (IDPs) -- the evacuees or “bakwits” as they have come to be known – are still in cramped evacuation centers and government buildings and schoolhouses, waiting for the time when they can return to their homes and resume their interrupted lives,” the MPC statement said.
Fr. Vasquez said that his sources from the military already advised him to “be prepared” because the war may escalate “since this (war) already has the blessings of the higher ups. They told me we can no longer stop this, Father because the order came from up there.”
The MPC statement said “the war has instead become so vicious and soldiers who are supposed to be running against renegade MILF commanders for allegedly attacking civilians are now committing the very same atrocities that renegade commanders allegedly perpetuate.”
At a coordination meeting of humanitarian agencies and representatives of the evacuees in Cotabato City last Thursday, it was reported that the military has blocked a truck-load of rice intended for the evacuees last May 27. On May 5, 11 truckloads of relief goods of the International Committee on the Red Cross were also blocked at a military checkpoint.
“The military refuses to acknowledge it is food blockade. But it is food blockade, nonetheless, when food intended for evacuees are held at checkpoints, the MPC statement said as it condemned “this practice of blocking humanitarian assistance to the evacuees” emphasizing that “justice delayed is justice denied, food delayed is food denied as well. And food denied could, as we all know, help save starving bakwits from preventable deaths.”
The MPC statement also called on civil society and church organizations, including international humanitarian agencies, “to stand up and assert the independence of relief assistance as a matter of right for the IDPs. Our silence on this regard can be construed as our acquiescence to military's control of relief supplies to promote their military objective.”
It was earlier reported that of the 50,333 families of displaced persons in Maguindanao, only 15,522 were provided relief assistance.
MPC called on the Commission of Human Rights to investigate the alleged military atrocities and “bring those responsible for the attacks to justice.”
DATU PIANG, Maguindanao – As the situation of evacuees in refugee camps here continues to worsen with people starving and dying, another wave of over 200 families fled their homes on May 31, adding to the 6,277 evacuee-families reported last week.
The over 200 families fled Barangay Reyna Regente of this town to seek refuge under the trees in the village of Macasendig in neighboring town of Midsayap in North Cotabato.
Fr. Eduardo Vasquez, OMI, parish priest here, and his over 30 youth volunteers under the OMI Disaster Response Team, immediately distributed relief goods and plastic laminated sacks for the shanties that the evacuees built under a woody area in Macasendig.
Fr. Vasquez said that the evacuation was triggered by an encounter between government militias and Moro guerrillas of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the burning of houses of civilians in May 31.
Noraida Musa, an evacuee who joined the queue for rice rations, said in vernacular that “there are more than 100 houses of civilians burned” by armed men. Asked who the armed men were, she said: “Cafgus (Citizens Armed Forces Geographical Unit) and CVOs (Civilian Volunteer Organization), both are government militias.
Yul Olaya, coordinator of the Bantay Ceasefire, a community-based grassroots organization actively monitoring the implementation of the ceasefire agreement between the government and the MILF, said his group was able to count 92 houses burned.
This developed after evacuees in Nunangan village in the neighbor town of Talayan, also in Maguindanao, filed at the Commission on Human Rights in Region 12 “destructive arson” cases against soldiers they alleged were behind the torching of some 150 houses located at the public market of the community last May 7.
In their sworn statements, the complainants alleged that the soldiers ordered them (civilians) to vacate the community before the torching of their dwellings.
Meanwhile, the Mindanao Peoples Caucus (MPC), a tri-people organization actively campaigning for peace advocacy in Mindanao, denounced the Army for the burning of houses of civilians.
In an MPC statement, titled “Stop the Food Blockade,” the MPC said: “Nearly a year since military operations were launched against two field commanders of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), the commanders are still on the loose and the civilians are suffering the brunt of war: children, pregnant women, teachers, students, the civilian population in Maguindanao.”
The government, since August last year, has been running after so-called “lawless MILF” Commanders Ameril Umbra Kato, Abdulrahman Macapaar, alias Commander Bravo, and one Commander Mercury who are both operating in two Lanao provinces, and, Wahid Tundok, also in Maguindanao.
“For more than ten months now, these internally displaced persons (IDPs) -- the evacuees or “bakwits” as they have come to be known – are still in cramped evacuation centers and government buildings and schoolhouses, waiting for the time when they can return to their homes and resume their interrupted lives,” the MPC statement said.
Fr. Vasquez said that his sources from the military already advised him to “be prepared” because the war may escalate “since this (war) already has the blessings of the higher ups. They told me we can no longer stop this, Father because the order came from up there.”
The MPC statement said “the war has instead become so vicious and soldiers who are supposed to be running against renegade MILF commanders for allegedly attacking civilians are now committing the very same atrocities that renegade commanders allegedly perpetuate.”
At a coordination meeting of humanitarian agencies and representatives of the evacuees in Cotabato City last Thursday, it was reported that the military has blocked a truck-load of rice intended for the evacuees last May 27. On May 5, 11 truckloads of relief goods of the International Committee on the Red Cross were also blocked at a military checkpoint.
“The military refuses to acknowledge it is food blockade. But it is food blockade, nonetheless, when food intended for evacuees are held at checkpoints, the MPC statement said as it condemned “this practice of blocking humanitarian assistance to the evacuees” emphasizing that “justice delayed is justice denied, food delayed is food denied as well. And food denied could, as we all know, help save starving bakwits from preventable deaths.”
The MPC statement also called on civil society and church organizations, including international humanitarian agencies, “to stand up and assert the independence of relief assistance as a matter of right for the IDPs. Our silence on this regard can be construed as our acquiescence to military's control of relief supplies to promote their military objective.”
It was earlier reported that of the 50,333 families of displaced persons in Maguindanao, only 15,522 were provided relief assistance.
MPC called on the Commission of Human Rights to investigate the alleged military atrocities and “bring those responsible for the attacks to justice.”
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
IID calls for stop of humanitarian crisis inMindanao
The Initiatives for International Dialogue (IID) issued a statement last May 13 calling for stop of the humanitarian crisis in Mindanao.
Here is the statement of the IID:
STOP THE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN MINDANAO
13 May 2009
We express grave concern on the recent spate of conflict in Maguindanao, one of five provinces under the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) which has forced thousands of villagers to flee their homes.
Both sides of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the government have accused each other of violating a fragile truce signed in 2001. Today, thousands of people are again cramped in evacuation centers, joining the increasing number of internally displaced persons in Mindanao. Some lost their family members to the war, while most are forced to leave home.
We express grave concern on the recent spate of conflict in Maguindanao, one of five provinces under the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) which has forced thousands of villagers to flee their homes.
Both sides of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the government have accused each other of violating a fragile truce signed in 2001. Today, thousands of people are again cramped in evacuation centers, joining the increasing number of internally displaced persons in Mindanao. Some lost their family members to the war, while most are forced to leave home.
On April 28, 2009 four innocent Muslim civilians were reportedly found dead in Shariff Aguak with their heads beheaded and bodies mutilated by gun shots and bladed weapons. Houses have also been burned.
This turn of events could further erode the community initiatives for the peaceful resolution of conflict and the development gains in Mindanao.
According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), a Geneva-based leading international body monitoring conflict-induced internal displacement, the Philippines ranked first in the number of IDPs worldwide by registering 600,000 evacuees in 2008. This figure is higher than that of Sudan (550,000) -- a country similarly long beset by internal armed conflict.
The 600,000 IDPs in Mindanao topped that of Kenya (500,000), Democratic Republic of Congo (at least 400,000), Iraq (360,000), Pakistan (over 310,000), Somalia (300,000), Colombia (270,000), Sri Lanka (230,000) and India (over 220,000).
We appeal for the immediate suspension of military operations in the communities in Mindanao. The SOMO is a confidence building measure to allow existing ceasefire mechanisms to work and enable communities to return to their homes.
We also appeal to the leadership of both the government and the MILF to demonstrate commitment to peace by creating an atmosphere open for dialogues and negotiations.
We call on the support of the international community to avert the humanitarian crisis in Mindanao and support the peoples call for peace. We believe that the foundation of peace and development rests on respect and recognition of the rights of the people to live humanely, pursue opportunities and be able to genuinely participate in governance.
Mindanao has suffered more than enough. The decades old war had turned children into orphans, mothers into widows and had effectively put them in the margins. It has generated thousands of internally displaced persons who have no other option but to live their lives in fear and unable to pursue their dreams for a better life.
In 2008, after the failed signing of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD), conflict interrupted and displaced the lives of an estimated 600,000 people in Mindanao. Before the upsurge in fighting, it was estimated that the conflict had displaced more than two million people since 2000.
Their voices are drowned by the sound of bombs and guns.
Public resources allocated for bullets and bombs could be better spent for education, health and basic services in Mindanao and in laying the ground for social and physical development infrastructure.
We continue to take on the responsibility to build partnerships with communities and peoples in Mindanao and in Southeast Asia. We believe that peace dialogues can never take place in an atmosphere of mistrust and hostility.
We firmly call on government and the MILF to listen to the plea of Mindanawans to stop the bloodshed in Mindanao and allow genuine peace to reign in the island. We reiterate our call to the international community to avert the humanitarian crisis in Mindanao and help its people to rebuild and regain control over their lives. Your solidarity in this time of crisis is highly needed to ensure that the peoples of Mindanao would have their stake in the peace and development process.
Here is the statement of the IID:
STOP THE HUMANITARIAN CRISIS IN MINDANAO
13 May 2009
We express grave concern on the recent spate of conflict in Maguindanao, one of five provinces under the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) which has forced thousands of villagers to flee their homes.
Both sides of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the government have accused each other of violating a fragile truce signed in 2001. Today, thousands of people are again cramped in evacuation centers, joining the increasing number of internally displaced persons in Mindanao. Some lost their family members to the war, while most are forced to leave home.
We express grave concern on the recent spate of conflict in Maguindanao, one of five provinces under the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) which has forced thousands of villagers to flee their homes.
Both sides of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and the government have accused each other of violating a fragile truce signed in 2001. Today, thousands of people are again cramped in evacuation centers, joining the increasing number of internally displaced persons in Mindanao. Some lost their family members to the war, while most are forced to leave home.
On April 28, 2009 four innocent Muslim civilians were reportedly found dead in Shariff Aguak with their heads beheaded and bodies mutilated by gun shots and bladed weapons. Houses have also been burned.
This turn of events could further erode the community initiatives for the peaceful resolution of conflict and the development gains in Mindanao.
According to the Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), a Geneva-based leading international body monitoring conflict-induced internal displacement, the Philippines ranked first in the number of IDPs worldwide by registering 600,000 evacuees in 2008. This figure is higher than that of Sudan (550,000) -- a country similarly long beset by internal armed conflict.
The 600,000 IDPs in Mindanao topped that of Kenya (500,000), Democratic Republic of Congo (at least 400,000), Iraq (360,000), Pakistan (over 310,000), Somalia (300,000), Colombia (270,000), Sri Lanka (230,000) and India (over 220,000).
We appeal for the immediate suspension of military operations in the communities in Mindanao. The SOMO is a confidence building measure to allow existing ceasefire mechanisms to work and enable communities to return to their homes.
We also appeal to the leadership of both the government and the MILF to demonstrate commitment to peace by creating an atmosphere open for dialogues and negotiations.
We call on the support of the international community to avert the humanitarian crisis in Mindanao and support the peoples call for peace. We believe that the foundation of peace and development rests on respect and recognition of the rights of the people to live humanely, pursue opportunities and be able to genuinely participate in governance.
Mindanao has suffered more than enough. The decades old war had turned children into orphans, mothers into widows and had effectively put them in the margins. It has generated thousands of internally displaced persons who have no other option but to live their lives in fear and unable to pursue their dreams for a better life.
In 2008, after the failed signing of the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD), conflict interrupted and displaced the lives of an estimated 600,000 people in Mindanao. Before the upsurge in fighting, it was estimated that the conflict had displaced more than two million people since 2000.
Their voices are drowned by the sound of bombs and guns.
Public resources allocated for bullets and bombs could be better spent for education, health and basic services in Mindanao and in laying the ground for social and physical development infrastructure.
We continue to take on the responsibility to build partnerships with communities and peoples in Mindanao and in Southeast Asia. We believe that peace dialogues can never take place in an atmosphere of mistrust and hostility.
We firmly call on government and the MILF to listen to the plea of Mindanawans to stop the bloodshed in Mindanao and allow genuine peace to reign in the island. We reiterate our call to the international community to avert the humanitarian crisis in Mindanao and help its people to rebuild and regain control over their lives. Your solidarity in this time of crisis is highly needed to ensure that the peoples of Mindanao would have their stake in the peace and development process.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
COMMENTARY: MOA-AD documents another injustice against the Bangsamoro – MILF
By Taher G. Solaiman
Cotabato City/February 25, 2009 -- Asserting that the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain Aspect of the Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 (MOA-AD), having been already initialed by the Parties to the peace negotiations, is a “done deal” and a “living document,” Jun Mantawil, head of the secretariat of the Peace Panel of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), claimed that the MOA-AD “documents another injustice being committed against the Bangsamoro people.”
In his paper titled “A Brief on the GRP-MILF Peace Talks as Option for Peace in Mindanao,” that he read before the participants of the two-day Mindanao Civil Society Organizations Peace Summit held in the El Manuel Convention Hall, this city, on February 18-19, 2009, Mantawil also said that “the unilateral action and heavy use of force by the government against so-called rogue MILF commanders (Kato & Bravo) had rendered the peace mechanisms ineffective and inutile to the destructions of lives and properties with a semblance of humanitarian tragedy where about 695,225 internally displaced persons (IDPs) were uprooted from their place of abodes particularly in Moro communities in Mindanao.”
In retrospect, the MOA-AD was initialed on July 27, 2008 by Sec. Rodolfo C. Garcia, chair of the GRP Peace Negotiating Panel and Sec. Hermogenes Esperon for the Philippine government; Mohagher Iqbal, chair of the MILF Peace Negotiating Panel, for the MILF, and Datuk Othman bin Abd’ Razak, chief Malaysian facilitator, for the
Malaysian government, as witness. The initialing was done in the presence of Sec. Norberto Gonzalez, chief national security adviser of the Philippine Government and Dato’ Ahmad Zamzamin bin Hashim, chief of the Prime Minister Research Department of Malaysia.
However, the signing ceremony that was set on August 5, 2009 in Putrajaya, Malaysia, was aborted by the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
As regards the possible resumption of the peace negotiations, Mantawil reiterated the five-point declaration that the MILF put forward for the peace talks to resume, namely:
1) There must be an international guarantee composed of states or group of states that both government and MILF to honor and comply with agreement forged by the parties;
2) The status of the MOA-AD must be settled first, because to the MILF it is "done deal,” but to the government, it is "no deal" and "unconstitutional;"
3) The International Monitoring Team (IMT) must lead the investigation of all violations of the ceasefire from July 1, 2008 to date;
4) The government to stop its offensive in Mindanao even against so-called rogue commanders of the MILF, and
5) Malaysia will stay as facilitator of the peace talks.
Besides, the MILF raised some questions that it wants answered first lest it fears the repeat of what happened in Malaysia on August 5, 2008 when the government was restrained by the Supreme Court from signing the MOA-AD.
These questions are:
1) Does President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo possess the political will now to
sign and honor its agreement and not buckle down to save her neck instead of taking risk, as any good and decisive leader dares do, to solve a centuries-old Moro Problem in Mindanao?
2) Does the peace process become the “national agenda” of the entire
government and not just the executive branch of government? Are other branches of government especially the Lower House and the Senate on board?
3) Has Arroyo already reined in anti-MOA-AD personalities to treat the peace
process as a real problem-solving exercise and not a counter-insurgency
tool?
4) Did she reach out to justices of the Supreme Court regarding her peace
agenda in Mindanao?
5) And lastly, is the government serious and not just to dribble the talks until
June 2010, the end of the term of President Arroyo, and in the interlude, pursues its mendicancy policy using the rehabilitation of Mindanao as the reason?
On his part, Atty. Zainudin Malang, executive director of the Center for Bangsamoro Law and Policy, who spoke on “Civil Society’s Role in Internationalizing the Resolution of the Mindanao Conflict,” noted that there is a need to internationalize the conflict resolution in Mindanao because “domestic institutions have either failed or refused to resolve the conflict” by refusing “to address serious legitimate grievances of the Bangsamoro” and that “State institutions (executive, judiciary, legislature) and non-state institutions (media, business, national civil society, church) have expressed opposition to the MOA-AD.”
Malang also cited other reasons such as “the international community (foreign governments, international government and NGO institutions, international civil society, international media) have been instrumental, even indispensable, in resolving conflicts around the globe” such as “Northern Ireland, Southern Sudan, Aceh,” among others.
He, nonetheless, clarified that “although involvements by international community will not necessarily result in the resolution of a conflict, its participation increases the chances of just and sustainable peace” as he further stressed that “the international community has a right and duty to protect people where states or governments fail to do so.”
“However, just because it is a duty does not necessarily mean that the international community will step in or continue to involve themselves in resolving the conflict if there is no impetus or pressure for them to do so. And domestic society and institutions will oppose internationalization,” Malang said.
While Malang admitted that some aspects of the conflict are already internationalized, he lamented that “the level of internationalization does not match the magnitude of the crisis.”
He, then, emphasized that the international community “will not take the conflict seriously unless they see or hear stakeholders here take it seriously” and “they will not be pro-active in advocating for a just resolution of the conflict unless they see or hear stakeholders here being similarly, if not more, pro-active.”
Atty. Mary Ann Arnado, the secretary-general of the Mindanao People’s Caucus, also shared her thoughts on the “Role of Civil Society in Pushing for the Peace Process Forward.”
Arnado stressed the importance of reaching out to the “unconvinced” among the communities and such groups as the academe, media, business, civil society, church and local government units, as regards the MOA-AD.
At the end of the peace summit, the participating nongovernment organizations and people’s organizations were unanimous in their call for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to stop its military operations in and immediately pull out its troops from the civilian communities; the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) to cause the safe return and rehabilitation of the internally displaced persons (IDP’s) to their respective places of origin; the international non-government organizations (INGO’s) and the international community to help urge the GRP and the MILF to return to the negotiating table, and continue the peace talks from where they stopped before the aborted signing of the MOA-AD.
Cotabato City/February 25, 2009 -- Asserting that the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain Aspect of the Tripoli Agreement on Peace of 2001 (MOA-AD), having been already initialed by the Parties to the peace negotiations, is a “done deal” and a “living document,” Jun Mantawil, head of the secretariat of the Peace Panel of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), claimed that the MOA-AD “documents another injustice being committed against the Bangsamoro people.”
In his paper titled “A Brief on the GRP-MILF Peace Talks as Option for Peace in Mindanao,” that he read before the participants of the two-day Mindanao Civil Society Organizations Peace Summit held in the El Manuel Convention Hall, this city, on February 18-19, 2009, Mantawil also said that “the unilateral action and heavy use of force by the government against so-called rogue MILF commanders (Kato & Bravo) had rendered the peace mechanisms ineffective and inutile to the destructions of lives and properties with a semblance of humanitarian tragedy where about 695,225 internally displaced persons (IDPs) were uprooted from their place of abodes particularly in Moro communities in Mindanao.”
In retrospect, the MOA-AD was initialed on July 27, 2008 by Sec. Rodolfo C. Garcia, chair of the GRP Peace Negotiating Panel and Sec. Hermogenes Esperon for the Philippine government; Mohagher Iqbal, chair of the MILF Peace Negotiating Panel, for the MILF, and Datuk Othman bin Abd’ Razak, chief Malaysian facilitator, for the
Malaysian government, as witness. The initialing was done in the presence of Sec. Norberto Gonzalez, chief national security adviser of the Philippine Government and Dato’ Ahmad Zamzamin bin Hashim, chief of the Prime Minister Research Department of Malaysia.
However, the signing ceremony that was set on August 5, 2009 in Putrajaya, Malaysia, was aborted by the Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.
As regards the possible resumption of the peace negotiations, Mantawil reiterated the five-point declaration that the MILF put forward for the peace talks to resume, namely:
1) There must be an international guarantee composed of states or group of states that both government and MILF to honor and comply with agreement forged by the parties;
2) The status of the MOA-AD must be settled first, because to the MILF it is "done deal,” but to the government, it is "no deal" and "unconstitutional;"
3) The International Monitoring Team (IMT) must lead the investigation of all violations of the ceasefire from July 1, 2008 to date;
4) The government to stop its offensive in Mindanao even against so-called rogue commanders of the MILF, and
5) Malaysia will stay as facilitator of the peace talks.
Besides, the MILF raised some questions that it wants answered first lest it fears the repeat of what happened in Malaysia on August 5, 2008 when the government was restrained by the Supreme Court from signing the MOA-AD.
These questions are:
1) Does President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo possess the political will now to
sign and honor its agreement and not buckle down to save her neck instead of taking risk, as any good and decisive leader dares do, to solve a centuries-old Moro Problem in Mindanao?
2) Does the peace process become the “national agenda” of the entire
government and not just the executive branch of government? Are other branches of government especially the Lower House and the Senate on board?
3) Has Arroyo already reined in anti-MOA-AD personalities to treat the peace
process as a real problem-solving exercise and not a counter-insurgency
tool?
4) Did she reach out to justices of the Supreme Court regarding her peace
agenda in Mindanao?
5) And lastly, is the government serious and not just to dribble the talks until
June 2010, the end of the term of President Arroyo, and in the interlude, pursues its mendicancy policy using the rehabilitation of Mindanao as the reason?
On his part, Atty. Zainudin Malang, executive director of the Center for Bangsamoro Law and Policy, who spoke on “Civil Society’s Role in Internationalizing the Resolution of the Mindanao Conflict,” noted that there is a need to internationalize the conflict resolution in Mindanao because “domestic institutions have either failed or refused to resolve the conflict” by refusing “to address serious legitimate grievances of the Bangsamoro” and that “State institutions (executive, judiciary, legislature) and non-state institutions (media, business, national civil society, church) have expressed opposition to the MOA-AD.”
Malang also cited other reasons such as “the international community (foreign governments, international government and NGO institutions, international civil society, international media) have been instrumental, even indispensable, in resolving conflicts around the globe” such as “Northern Ireland, Southern Sudan, Aceh,” among others.
He, nonetheless, clarified that “although involvements by international community will not necessarily result in the resolution of a conflict, its participation increases the chances of just and sustainable peace” as he further stressed that “the international community has a right and duty to protect people where states or governments fail to do so.”
“However, just because it is a duty does not necessarily mean that the international community will step in or continue to involve themselves in resolving the conflict if there is no impetus or pressure for them to do so. And domestic society and institutions will oppose internationalization,” Malang said.
While Malang admitted that some aspects of the conflict are already internationalized, he lamented that “the level of internationalization does not match the magnitude of the crisis.”
He, then, emphasized that the international community “will not take the conflict seriously unless they see or hear stakeholders here take it seriously” and “they will not be pro-active in advocating for a just resolution of the conflict unless they see or hear stakeholders here being similarly, if not more, pro-active.”
Atty. Mary Ann Arnado, the secretary-general of the Mindanao People’s Caucus, also shared her thoughts on the “Role of Civil Society in Pushing for the Peace Process Forward.”
Arnado stressed the importance of reaching out to the “unconvinced” among the communities and such groups as the academe, media, business, civil society, church and local government units, as regards the MOA-AD.
At the end of the peace summit, the participating nongovernment organizations and people’s organizations were unanimous in their call for the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to stop its military operations in and immediately pull out its troops from the civilian communities; the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) to cause the safe return and rehabilitation of the internally displaced persons (IDP’s) to their respective places of origin; the international non-government organizations (INGO’s) and the international community to help urge the GRP and the MILF to return to the negotiating table, and continue the peace talks from where they stopped before the aborted signing of the MOA-AD.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Remembering the ‘Day of Treachery’ and Its Implications
By Maulana Bobby Alonto
Brother Al Haj Murad Ebrahim, Chairman of the MILF and Amirul Mujahideen, is right in designating February 11 as the ‘Day of Treachery’.
This is to remind the Bangsamoro people of what had happened on that fateful day of February 11, 2003, which is six years ago, when the Armed Forces of the Philippines, without rhyme or reason, suddenly unleashed an indiscriminate and devastating barrage of artillery and mortar fire on the Islamic Center at the Buliok Complex in Pagalungan, Maguindanao. The Islamic Center was the temporary ‘residence’ of Sheikh Salamat Hashim, the late Chairman of the MILF and Amirul Mujahideen, from where he also received visitors from all corners of the Bangsamoro Homeland and from all over the world after the ‘capture’ of Camp Abubakr as-Siddiq in 2000. The bombardment took place while the Islamic faithful were gathered in the mosque for the early morning congregational prayer to begin the celebration of ‘Id’l Adha, the end of Hajj, one of the two major Islamic religious holidays observed by Muslims worldwide.
To recall, it was Sheikh Salamat Hashim, who was delivering the khutbah, the ‘Id prayer sermon, when the artillery barrage commenced and shells from the AFP’s heavy cannons and mortars began exploding all over the Islamic Center and its vicinity. Undaunted, the Sheikh and the Muslim faithful in the mosque remained inside until the prayers, invocations and khutbah were over.
But the artillery barrage of the AFP was only a prelude to a massive ground attack by Filipino infantry formations and armored units on MILF forces in the Buliok complex and in all other fronts. This attack inaugurated the second all-out war that saw nearly 800,000 Moro civilians, majority of them women and children, being driven out of their homes and into refugee centers scattered all over Central Mindanao. Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., however, would state several months after the attack that the number of refugees would reach almost the million mark.
Retrospectively, the attack on Buliok was a calculated operation of the Philippine government hatched in the backroom of Malacañang to eliminate the MILF leadership so as to permanently disable the Moro liberation movement.
It also had economic implications. Buliok complex is located at the Liguasan marsh which is at the heart of the Cotabato Basin where natural gas and, most likely, petroleum have been discovered to abound in massive quantity. Significantly, this resource-rich area is under the control of the MILF, thus preventing the Philippine government, its predatory foreign transnational partners and the local Filipino political-cum-economic vested-interest groups in Mindanao from exploiting its natural wealth for their own benefit. A war to eject the MILF from the Liguasan was thus seen as the most expedient way to clear the area of any impediment to the exploitation of these natural resources rightly owned since time immemorial by the Maguindanaon Moros in particular and the Bangsamoro nation in general.
The timing was also right. Or so it seemed. The attack on the United States by ‘suicide bombers’ on September 11, 2001 had brought about the reconfiguration of attitudes and foreign policies of governments in the West and their allied regimes in the Third World. The so-called war on terror that the US, under George W. Bush, was to lead created a bandwagon among subservient regimes whose twin motives were to serve the imperial interests of the US and the West as well as use this opportunity to militarily crush legitimate liberation movements in their own backyards. And this, precisely, is what to my mind prompted the Arroyo regime to change course at that moment and attempt to ‘hit many birds with one stone’ when it veered away from the negotiating table, discarded its ceasefire agreement with the MILF, and launched its military adventure in Mindanao. With ‘Big Brother’, the US, at its back, the regime thought it could drop the peace talks with legitimate revolutionary movements by classifying them as ‘terrorists’ and then fight a war it knew it could never win on its own.
But even that was a miscalculation, a misreading of historical factors, deeply-entrenched sentiments and current trends as later developments would prove. For the aspiration of oppressed peoples and captive nations to be free can never be suppressed or defeated. The equation in conflicts brought about by the antagonism between state actors and liberation movements is such that the greater the repression, the greater the resistance. And this the Arroyo regime would find out soon enough when it foolishly unleashed the 2003 all-out war on the MILF and the Bangsamoro people.
Unknown to the public at large, the attack on Buliok was launched not only on an Islamic holiday; it was also done while preparations were being made by the MILF for the resumption of the peace negotiation with the Philippine government, which, under the Arroyo regime, was restarted in 2001 after it was suspended in 2000 as a result of the Estrada all-out-war. After the assumption to power of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo through a ‘people power revolt’ that cut short the term of Joseph Estrada, peace talks with the MILF were resumed with Malaysia and, for a while Libya, as third party facilitators.
During the preliminary talks prior to the formal negotiation in Tripoli (Libya), a Philippine government emissary, Eduardo Ermita, told the MILF representatives in Kuala Lumpur that never again would an ‘all-out war’ happen under the watch of Arroyo. But less than two years after Ermita uttered those words, the Buliok attack happened which subsequently triggered another all-out war. And this occurred while another round of peace talks was supposedly scheduled the following week after ‘Id’l Adha, the day of the aggression.
Indeed, if this was not an act of treachery, it would be difficult, if not well-nigh impossible, to define what an act of treachery is.
At the height of the Philippine military aggression, an insider in the Philippine government confidentially disclosed to some Muslims that in one of the many meetings called by President Arroyo in Malacañang with top honchos of the military establishment, she berated these officials for having failed to get Sheikh Salamat Hashim “dead or alive”. This insider vividly described Arroyo as near hysterical in her rage; accordingly, shouting at the top of her voice she repeated her orders to the military officials present to spare no effort to kill Sheikh Salamat at all cost or by hook or by crook.
I am not presuming to know if this disclosure were a hundred percent reliable. But one thing certain is that Sheikh Salamat was declared by the government and the military a “high-value target” as documentary evidence would later show. And this amounted to pretty much the same thing that the insider said was what Arroyo ordered her military commanders in the AFP to accomplish with respect to the physical elimination of Sheikh Salamat. Whatever it is, though, I am positively certain that the declaration of Sheikh Salamat as “high-value target” would have had the clearance of the highest authority in the Philippine nation-state.
In any event, this act of treachery, while peace talks were still on with the MILF, would impact greatly on the economic, and consequentially political, stability of the Arroyo regime. Already debilitated by entrenched corruption in all levels and institutions of government, the Arroyo regime would reel back from a guerrilla war that the MILF had relentlessly waged at that time in defense of its territories and its mass-based organized communities erroneously called ‘camps’ by the Philippine military. Much to the consternation of the government and the military, this guerrilla war could not be contained in a particular locale; on the contrary, it affected, directly or indirectly, almost all areas of Mindanao and Sulu.
In a report submitted to the 10th Session of the OIC Islamic Summit Meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on October 11-18, 2003, the MILF Central Committee stated, among others, that five regions in Mindanao were affected by the war: ARMM, Region IX, Region XI, Region X, Region XI and Region XII. In other words, the conflict covered 12 provinces, 5 cities, 74 municipalities, and 342 barangays.
The immediate result of this was that six months after it had exuberantly embarked on its military adventurism in Mindanao in February 11 the Arroyo regime had to return, like a humbled whimpering canine with its tail between its legs, to the negotiating table with the MILF. Had it not done so, it would have gone the way of the disgraced Estrada regime whose previous all-out war against the Bangsamoro people and the MILF had weakened it to such an extent that it became vulnerable to a military-civilian coup d’état euphemistically called ‘people power revolution’.
However, the Bangsamoro people and the MILF, too, would emerge from the effects of February 11 without being unscathed. Apart from the massive devastation of Moro communities and the deaths of hundreds of people insufficiently documented because of the viciousness of the war, the Bangsamoro people and the MILF lost their greatest mujahid leader of the time – Sheikh Salamat Hashim.
Reminiscing on those fateful events, one can hardly maintain control of one’s emotions because those were truly emotional moments. When Buliok was placed under siege by the AFP, Ustadz Salamat stubbornly refused to vacate the Islamic Center. Friends, brothers-in-arms and relatives alike appealed to him to withdraw to a secured area, but all these were in vain. The Sheikh was prepared to stand, fight and die as a Shahid (martyr in a state of jihaad). It took the convincing and persistent arguments of then MILF Central Committee Vice-Chairman Al Haj Murad Ebrahim to persuade him to seek safety in a more secured area, and it was only then that the late Sheikh agreed to move to the jungle fastness of Lanao del Sur where he would continue to conduct the MILF’s guerrilla war of resistance against the military aggression of the sitting Filipino regime.
The perilous journey of Sheikh Salamat to Lanao del Sur is a thrilling story very much like a movie plot that in itself needs to be told at the appropriate time. This writer and several other brothers contributed in a humble way to the successful and safe entry of the Sheikh into Lanao del Sur where he finally returned to the Mercy of his Lord and Creator several months later due to a lingering heart ailment exacerbated by harsh living conditions.
It was in the mountains of Lanao del Sur that I (as with other members of the MILF peace panel and the MILF Chairman’s staff) personally witnessed the incredible jihadi revolutionary patience, perseverance and sacrifices of the late Sheikh Salamat in the face of the intense military manhunt mounted against him by the Philippine government and the terrific deprivation that he was subjected to. All told, this took a fatal toll on his already weakened health that finally led to his death on July 13, 2003.
The demise of Sheikh Salamat Hashim indeed placed the whole Bangsamoro nation in a state of grief. The loss was felt by the humblest Moro peasant fighter of the MILF in the countryside of the Moro homeland. It reverberated to foreign shores where Moro expatriates, Muslim and Arab leaders and revolutionaries of the global Islamic movement alike mourned his death. But, it also shattered a myth – a myth that the Philippine government had been trying to make the public believe: that his death would lead to a leadership crisis inside the MILF, resulting in its disintegration.
But to the surprise and dismay of all who were expecting that the MILF would crumble because of power struggle after the physical exit of the Sheikh, the MILF emerged more united and organized contrary to what was anticipated by the enemies of the Bangsamoro Revolution. The smooth transition to the MILF chairmanship of Al Haj Murad Ebrahim and the manner by which he was elected by the MILF collective leadership to this position disproved once and for all the preconceived notion that the MILF was only good while Sheikh Salamat was alive.
The ascendance of Al Haj Murad, a veteran Moro mujahideen leader, a committed revolutionary and a skilled diplomat, to the MILF chairmanship which was welcomed by the rank and file of the MILF and the Bangsamoro people proved yet again the resiliency of the MILF not only in times of military adversities but in periods of political and organizational difficulties. This resiliency demonstrated even to the enemies of the Bangsamoro Revolution who were forced to accept and admit, albeit grudgingly, even in their public declarations that the MILF is indeed an Islamic ideological revolutionary movement incomparable to the MNLF.
In ideological revolutionary movements, leadership styles may differ as one leader is replaced by another for whatever reasons. Each leader has a unique way of managing the affairs of the movement. But, what remains constant is principled policy because such is reflective of the ideology of the organization. This is demonstrated in the revolutionary dynamics of consultation (shurah) within the MILF, which is an inherent mechanism in Islam that allows for the translation of ideological principles into concrete policies whether by an Islamic revolutionary government and state or a movement.
Ustadz Salamat Hashim, when he was alive, believed that a negotiated political settlement is the most practical and civilized way to resolve the Bangsamoro problem without, however, derogating the central role of armed jihaad in the liberation struggle as the principal mode to defend the Bangsamoro people from colonialist aggression, repression and oppression by the Philippine nation-state.
This belief is not without any basis in the Qur’an al-Kareem, the Sunnah and the Seerah of the Holy Prophet of Islam (saw). In short, both armed struggle and peace negotiation find endorsement in Islam. The Prophet (saw) used both means to complement each other as evidenced by the battles he fought and the peace pacts he entered into with the hostile jahiliyyah tribes of Arabia, the most prominent of which was the Treaty of Hudaibiya which he concluded with the numero uno enemy of the Muslims at that time, the pagan Quraishi ruling class of Makkah.
That said, when Sheikh Salamat presented the idea of a negotiated political settlement of the Bangsamoro Problem, it was a natural consequence of the Islamic ideology to which he, not to mention the entire leadership of the MILF, adhered. It is, therefore, not surprising that such a belief would be translated into a principled policy of the MILF which its present post-Salamat leadership under Al Haj Murad would continue and uphold to this day.
The consistency with which the MILF has shown by holding on to the policy of a negotiated political settlement of the Bangsamoro problem despite the erratic behavior of the Philippine government in and out of the negotiating table illustrates the ideological-cum-political maturity of the MILF leadership. This ideological-cum-political maturity does not have any room for arbitrariness.
I believe that this policy consistency is what has unfolded before the very eyes of the international community, including the OIC, in the course of events after February 11, 2003, which explains why it views the MILF with more understanding and sympathy as never before. For, it was this policy consistency that the MILF demonstrated when it remained devoted to the peace process in the face of the aborted MOA-AD signing after 11 long years of painstaking negotiations trying to find a compromise formula to end the conflict in Mindanao and Sulu. It was this policy consistency that the MILF also displayed when it did not disband its panel of negotiators even as the Philippine government capriciously abandoned the negotiations by scuttling its peace panel in favor of another round of destructive offensive war in Mindanao. And, it was also this policy consistency that by and large restrained the MILF from responding in kind to the consuming war that the war hawks in the AFP wanted to draw the MILF into. The most that the MILF did was to adopt a defensive posture in the light of the aggressive and repressive nature of the wide-scale military operations that the AFP is currently conducting against MILF ground forces and Moro mass-based organized communities.
February 11, 2003, the ‘Day of Treachery’, will indeed be forever etched in the memory of our oppressed people and nation. Not only because that ‘black day’ unveiled to our people the blatant perfidiousness of the Philippine colonialist rulers of our occupied Moro homeland but, on the positive side, it also taught us lessons in patience, perseverance and sacrifice in the face of a mendacious adversary.
Indeed, the Qur’an, as always, speaks the truth when it said in effect that those who are patient and vie with one another for constancy shall be rewarded by Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala with success.
We lost a great mujahid leader, the Imam of the Bangsamoro nation, in the person of Sheikh Salamat Hashim as a result of February 11, 2003. But in return, we gained a new Amir of the Bangsamoro nation, Al Haj Murad Ebrahim, who is a devoted and loyal ‘student’ of the Sheikh and therefore a leader equal to the task that the late MILF founder had left behind. On top of that, we have learned to value and practice the patience, perseverance, sacrifice and constancy which the Sheikh, in his lifetime, epitomized.
And because of that, we have matured.
We shall never forget 2/11, the ‘Day of Treachery’, particularly at this time when again the true colors of Philippine colonialism are coming out into the fore. Neither should this be forgotten by the next generation of Moros whose vision-mission is to bring to fruition the Bangsamoro nation’s struggle for the right of self-determination and freedom.
Brother Al Haj Murad Ebrahim, Chairman of the MILF and Amirul Mujahideen, is right in designating February 11 as the ‘Day of Treachery’.
This is to remind the Bangsamoro people of what had happened on that fateful day of February 11, 2003, which is six years ago, when the Armed Forces of the Philippines, without rhyme or reason, suddenly unleashed an indiscriminate and devastating barrage of artillery and mortar fire on the Islamic Center at the Buliok Complex in Pagalungan, Maguindanao. The Islamic Center was the temporary ‘residence’ of Sheikh Salamat Hashim, the late Chairman of the MILF and Amirul Mujahideen, from where he also received visitors from all corners of the Bangsamoro Homeland and from all over the world after the ‘capture’ of Camp Abubakr as-Siddiq in 2000. The bombardment took place while the Islamic faithful were gathered in the mosque for the early morning congregational prayer to begin the celebration of ‘Id’l Adha, the end of Hajj, one of the two major Islamic religious holidays observed by Muslims worldwide.
To recall, it was Sheikh Salamat Hashim, who was delivering the khutbah, the ‘Id prayer sermon, when the artillery barrage commenced and shells from the AFP’s heavy cannons and mortars began exploding all over the Islamic Center and its vicinity. Undaunted, the Sheikh and the Muslim faithful in the mosque remained inside until the prayers, invocations and khutbah were over.
But the artillery barrage of the AFP was only a prelude to a massive ground attack by Filipino infantry formations and armored units on MILF forces in the Buliok complex and in all other fronts. This attack inaugurated the second all-out war that saw nearly 800,000 Moro civilians, majority of them women and children, being driven out of their homes and into refugee centers scattered all over Central Mindanao. Senator Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., however, would state several months after the attack that the number of refugees would reach almost the million mark.
Retrospectively, the attack on Buliok was a calculated operation of the Philippine government hatched in the backroom of Malacañang to eliminate the MILF leadership so as to permanently disable the Moro liberation movement.
It also had economic implications. Buliok complex is located at the Liguasan marsh which is at the heart of the Cotabato Basin where natural gas and, most likely, petroleum have been discovered to abound in massive quantity. Significantly, this resource-rich area is under the control of the MILF, thus preventing the Philippine government, its predatory foreign transnational partners and the local Filipino political-cum-economic vested-interest groups in Mindanao from exploiting its natural wealth for their own benefit. A war to eject the MILF from the Liguasan was thus seen as the most expedient way to clear the area of any impediment to the exploitation of these natural resources rightly owned since time immemorial by the Maguindanaon Moros in particular and the Bangsamoro nation in general.
The timing was also right. Or so it seemed. The attack on the United States by ‘suicide bombers’ on September 11, 2001 had brought about the reconfiguration of attitudes and foreign policies of governments in the West and their allied regimes in the Third World. The so-called war on terror that the US, under George W. Bush, was to lead created a bandwagon among subservient regimes whose twin motives were to serve the imperial interests of the US and the West as well as use this opportunity to militarily crush legitimate liberation movements in their own backyards. And this, precisely, is what to my mind prompted the Arroyo regime to change course at that moment and attempt to ‘hit many birds with one stone’ when it veered away from the negotiating table, discarded its ceasefire agreement with the MILF, and launched its military adventure in Mindanao. With ‘Big Brother’, the US, at its back, the regime thought it could drop the peace talks with legitimate revolutionary movements by classifying them as ‘terrorists’ and then fight a war it knew it could never win on its own.
But even that was a miscalculation, a misreading of historical factors, deeply-entrenched sentiments and current trends as later developments would prove. For the aspiration of oppressed peoples and captive nations to be free can never be suppressed or defeated. The equation in conflicts brought about by the antagonism between state actors and liberation movements is such that the greater the repression, the greater the resistance. And this the Arroyo regime would find out soon enough when it foolishly unleashed the 2003 all-out war on the MILF and the Bangsamoro people.
Unknown to the public at large, the attack on Buliok was launched not only on an Islamic holiday; it was also done while preparations were being made by the MILF for the resumption of the peace negotiation with the Philippine government, which, under the Arroyo regime, was restarted in 2001 after it was suspended in 2000 as a result of the Estrada all-out-war. After the assumption to power of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo through a ‘people power revolt’ that cut short the term of Joseph Estrada, peace talks with the MILF were resumed with Malaysia and, for a while Libya, as third party facilitators.
During the preliminary talks prior to the formal negotiation in Tripoli (Libya), a Philippine government emissary, Eduardo Ermita, told the MILF representatives in Kuala Lumpur that never again would an ‘all-out war’ happen under the watch of Arroyo. But less than two years after Ermita uttered those words, the Buliok attack happened which subsequently triggered another all-out war. And this occurred while another round of peace talks was supposedly scheduled the following week after ‘Id’l Adha, the day of the aggression.
Indeed, if this was not an act of treachery, it would be difficult, if not well-nigh impossible, to define what an act of treachery is.
At the height of the Philippine military aggression, an insider in the Philippine government confidentially disclosed to some Muslims that in one of the many meetings called by President Arroyo in Malacañang with top honchos of the military establishment, she berated these officials for having failed to get Sheikh Salamat Hashim “dead or alive”. This insider vividly described Arroyo as near hysterical in her rage; accordingly, shouting at the top of her voice she repeated her orders to the military officials present to spare no effort to kill Sheikh Salamat at all cost or by hook or by crook.
I am not presuming to know if this disclosure were a hundred percent reliable. But one thing certain is that Sheikh Salamat was declared by the government and the military a “high-value target” as documentary evidence would later show. And this amounted to pretty much the same thing that the insider said was what Arroyo ordered her military commanders in the AFP to accomplish with respect to the physical elimination of Sheikh Salamat. Whatever it is, though, I am positively certain that the declaration of Sheikh Salamat as “high-value target” would have had the clearance of the highest authority in the Philippine nation-state.
In any event, this act of treachery, while peace talks were still on with the MILF, would impact greatly on the economic, and consequentially political, stability of the Arroyo regime. Already debilitated by entrenched corruption in all levels and institutions of government, the Arroyo regime would reel back from a guerrilla war that the MILF had relentlessly waged at that time in defense of its territories and its mass-based organized communities erroneously called ‘camps’ by the Philippine military. Much to the consternation of the government and the military, this guerrilla war could not be contained in a particular locale; on the contrary, it affected, directly or indirectly, almost all areas of Mindanao and Sulu.
In a report submitted to the 10th Session of the OIC Islamic Summit Meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on October 11-18, 2003, the MILF Central Committee stated, among others, that five regions in Mindanao were affected by the war: ARMM, Region IX, Region XI, Region X, Region XI and Region XII. In other words, the conflict covered 12 provinces, 5 cities, 74 municipalities, and 342 barangays.
The immediate result of this was that six months after it had exuberantly embarked on its military adventurism in Mindanao in February 11 the Arroyo regime had to return, like a humbled whimpering canine with its tail between its legs, to the negotiating table with the MILF. Had it not done so, it would have gone the way of the disgraced Estrada regime whose previous all-out war against the Bangsamoro people and the MILF had weakened it to such an extent that it became vulnerable to a military-civilian coup d’état euphemistically called ‘people power revolution’.
However, the Bangsamoro people and the MILF, too, would emerge from the effects of February 11 without being unscathed. Apart from the massive devastation of Moro communities and the deaths of hundreds of people insufficiently documented because of the viciousness of the war, the Bangsamoro people and the MILF lost their greatest mujahid leader of the time – Sheikh Salamat Hashim.
Reminiscing on those fateful events, one can hardly maintain control of one’s emotions because those were truly emotional moments. When Buliok was placed under siege by the AFP, Ustadz Salamat stubbornly refused to vacate the Islamic Center. Friends, brothers-in-arms and relatives alike appealed to him to withdraw to a secured area, but all these were in vain. The Sheikh was prepared to stand, fight and die as a Shahid (martyr in a state of jihaad). It took the convincing and persistent arguments of then MILF Central Committee Vice-Chairman Al Haj Murad Ebrahim to persuade him to seek safety in a more secured area, and it was only then that the late Sheikh agreed to move to the jungle fastness of Lanao del Sur where he would continue to conduct the MILF’s guerrilla war of resistance against the military aggression of the sitting Filipino regime.
The perilous journey of Sheikh Salamat to Lanao del Sur is a thrilling story very much like a movie plot that in itself needs to be told at the appropriate time. This writer and several other brothers contributed in a humble way to the successful and safe entry of the Sheikh into Lanao del Sur where he finally returned to the Mercy of his Lord and Creator several months later due to a lingering heart ailment exacerbated by harsh living conditions.
It was in the mountains of Lanao del Sur that I (as with other members of the MILF peace panel and the MILF Chairman’s staff) personally witnessed the incredible jihadi revolutionary patience, perseverance and sacrifices of the late Sheikh Salamat in the face of the intense military manhunt mounted against him by the Philippine government and the terrific deprivation that he was subjected to. All told, this took a fatal toll on his already weakened health that finally led to his death on July 13, 2003.
The demise of Sheikh Salamat Hashim indeed placed the whole Bangsamoro nation in a state of grief. The loss was felt by the humblest Moro peasant fighter of the MILF in the countryside of the Moro homeland. It reverberated to foreign shores where Moro expatriates, Muslim and Arab leaders and revolutionaries of the global Islamic movement alike mourned his death. But, it also shattered a myth – a myth that the Philippine government had been trying to make the public believe: that his death would lead to a leadership crisis inside the MILF, resulting in its disintegration.
But to the surprise and dismay of all who were expecting that the MILF would crumble because of power struggle after the physical exit of the Sheikh, the MILF emerged more united and organized contrary to what was anticipated by the enemies of the Bangsamoro Revolution. The smooth transition to the MILF chairmanship of Al Haj Murad Ebrahim and the manner by which he was elected by the MILF collective leadership to this position disproved once and for all the preconceived notion that the MILF was only good while Sheikh Salamat was alive.
The ascendance of Al Haj Murad, a veteran Moro mujahideen leader, a committed revolutionary and a skilled diplomat, to the MILF chairmanship which was welcomed by the rank and file of the MILF and the Bangsamoro people proved yet again the resiliency of the MILF not only in times of military adversities but in periods of political and organizational difficulties. This resiliency demonstrated even to the enemies of the Bangsamoro Revolution who were forced to accept and admit, albeit grudgingly, even in their public declarations that the MILF is indeed an Islamic ideological revolutionary movement incomparable to the MNLF.
In ideological revolutionary movements, leadership styles may differ as one leader is replaced by another for whatever reasons. Each leader has a unique way of managing the affairs of the movement. But, what remains constant is principled policy because such is reflective of the ideology of the organization. This is demonstrated in the revolutionary dynamics of consultation (shurah) within the MILF, which is an inherent mechanism in Islam that allows for the translation of ideological principles into concrete policies whether by an Islamic revolutionary government and state or a movement.
Ustadz Salamat Hashim, when he was alive, believed that a negotiated political settlement is the most practical and civilized way to resolve the Bangsamoro problem without, however, derogating the central role of armed jihaad in the liberation struggle as the principal mode to defend the Bangsamoro people from colonialist aggression, repression and oppression by the Philippine nation-state.
This belief is not without any basis in the Qur’an al-Kareem, the Sunnah and the Seerah of the Holy Prophet of Islam (saw). In short, both armed struggle and peace negotiation find endorsement in Islam. The Prophet (saw) used both means to complement each other as evidenced by the battles he fought and the peace pacts he entered into with the hostile jahiliyyah tribes of Arabia, the most prominent of which was the Treaty of Hudaibiya which he concluded with the numero uno enemy of the Muslims at that time, the pagan Quraishi ruling class of Makkah.
That said, when Sheikh Salamat presented the idea of a negotiated political settlement of the Bangsamoro Problem, it was a natural consequence of the Islamic ideology to which he, not to mention the entire leadership of the MILF, adhered. It is, therefore, not surprising that such a belief would be translated into a principled policy of the MILF which its present post-Salamat leadership under Al Haj Murad would continue and uphold to this day.
The consistency with which the MILF has shown by holding on to the policy of a negotiated political settlement of the Bangsamoro problem despite the erratic behavior of the Philippine government in and out of the negotiating table illustrates the ideological-cum-political maturity of the MILF leadership. This ideological-cum-political maturity does not have any room for arbitrariness.
I believe that this policy consistency is what has unfolded before the very eyes of the international community, including the OIC, in the course of events after February 11, 2003, which explains why it views the MILF with more understanding and sympathy as never before. For, it was this policy consistency that the MILF demonstrated when it remained devoted to the peace process in the face of the aborted MOA-AD signing after 11 long years of painstaking negotiations trying to find a compromise formula to end the conflict in Mindanao and Sulu. It was this policy consistency that the MILF also displayed when it did not disband its panel of negotiators even as the Philippine government capriciously abandoned the negotiations by scuttling its peace panel in favor of another round of destructive offensive war in Mindanao. And, it was also this policy consistency that by and large restrained the MILF from responding in kind to the consuming war that the war hawks in the AFP wanted to draw the MILF into. The most that the MILF did was to adopt a defensive posture in the light of the aggressive and repressive nature of the wide-scale military operations that the AFP is currently conducting against MILF ground forces and Moro mass-based organized communities.
February 11, 2003, the ‘Day of Treachery’, will indeed be forever etched in the memory of our oppressed people and nation. Not only because that ‘black day’ unveiled to our people the blatant perfidiousness of the Philippine colonialist rulers of our occupied Moro homeland but, on the positive side, it also taught us lessons in patience, perseverance and sacrifice in the face of a mendacious adversary.
Indeed, the Qur’an, as always, speaks the truth when it said in effect that those who are patient and vie with one another for constancy shall be rewarded by Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala with success.
We lost a great mujahid leader, the Imam of the Bangsamoro nation, in the person of Sheikh Salamat Hashim as a result of February 11, 2003. But in return, we gained a new Amir of the Bangsamoro nation, Al Haj Murad Ebrahim, who is a devoted and loyal ‘student’ of the Sheikh and therefore a leader equal to the task that the late MILF founder had left behind. On top of that, we have learned to value and practice the patience, perseverance, sacrifice and constancy which the Sheikh, in his lifetime, epitomized.
And because of that, we have matured.
We shall never forget 2/11, the ‘Day of Treachery’, particularly at this time when again the true colors of Philippine colonialism are coming out into the fore. Neither should this be forgotten by the next generation of Moros whose vision-mission is to bring to fruition the Bangsamoro nation’s struggle for the right of self-determination and freedom.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Philippine Government Should Sever Ties with Israel
By Stop the War Coalition-Philippines
We at Stop the War Coalition Philippines, a broad coalition of civil society organizations, social movements, labor unions, political parties, human rights, women's, students, religious and other organizations, strongly condemn Israel's war crimes against the people of Gaza and the international community.
These latest attacks are not only disproportionate, they are completely unjustifiable.
At the root of the continuing tragedy in the Middle East is the continuing illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel. That Israel is able to continue this occupation and that it is able to bomb and kill indiscriminately without restraint points to the incapacity of the international community, including the United Nations and the world's governments, to uphold peace and justice. It is this unwillingness to act that will ensure that more blood and tears will flow from this escalating war.
We in the Philippines must help stop this war not only because thousands of Filipino migrant workers are caught in the crossfire but because we have a stake in creating a world with peace and justice.
We at the Stop the War Campaign demand that Israel should immediately end its war crimes in Gaza and end the occupation of Palestine.
We demand that the United States immediately stops arming and funding Israel's war.
We call on the international community, the United Nations and all responsible international government and civil society organizations, to stop Israel from continuing its attacks and to support a just resolution to the crisis.
We demand that the Philippine government begins the process of severing all diplomatic ties with Israel until it complies with international law and ends the occupation of Palestine. At the same time, we also call for immediate relief and evacuation plans for Filipino workers in the region. We demand more jobs for Filipinos at home so that they will not be forced to seek employment in outlaw states.
As our elected representatives, our government should take a stand in favor of international law and justice, summon the Israeli ambassador to protest, and expressly condemn Israel for its actions.
We demand that Manila and other government units revoke their "sister city" ties with Israeli cities.
We call on our parliamentarians and diplomats to likewise denounce Israel's actions.
In solidarity with the Palestinian, as well as Israeli people opposed to war, we call on trade unions, universities, cultural organizations, political parties, and other social movements and civil society groups to be part of a global boycott and sanctions campaign against Israel.#
STOP THE WAR! COALITION- PHILIPPINES
MEMBERS:
Akbayan! Citizens' Action Party
Akbayan! Youth
Alab Katipunan (AK)
Alliance of Genuine Labor Organizations (AGLO)
Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL)
ALMANA
Alyansa ng Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Kabataan (ALYANSA)
Alyansa ng Sambayanan para sa Agarang Reporma (ASAP)
Anak Mindanao (AMIN)
APPRA
ASSALAM Bangsamoro
ASSALAM Party
Bagong Kamalayan Collective, Inc (BKCI)
Balay Rehabilitation Center Inc.
Bangsamoro People’s Solidarity
Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP)
Coalition Against Trafficking of Women Asia Pacific (CATW-AP)
Community Organizing and Rural Development, Inc. (Billah Islam)
Filipino Democratic Movement (FILDEM)
FOCUS on the Global South
Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC)
Gathering for Peace (GfP)
GZO Peace Institute
Institute for Popular Democracy (IPD)
International South Group Network (ISGN)
Juan Makata
Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Commission-AMRSP
K! Kalayaan NCR-BLC
KAAKBAY AFDM
KALAYAAN!
KANLUNGAN
Kilusan para sa Pambansang Demokrasya (KPD)
Kongreso ng Mamamayan Para sa Kalayaan (KOMPAK)
Laban ng Masa (LnM)
League of Urban Poor for Action (LUPA)
Liga Manggagawa (LM)
Lolas Kampanyera WW II Filipina "Comfort Women" Survivors of Japanese Military Sexual Slavery
MAKABAYAN Pilipinas
Manggagawa para sa Kalayaan ng Bayan (MAKABAYAN)
Mindanao Peoples' Peace Movement (MPPM)
Moro Human Rights Center
Movement for the Advancement of Student Power (MASP)
Pagkakaisa ng Kababaihan para sa Inang Bayan (KAISA-KA)
Pambansang Kaisahan ng Magbubukid sa Pilipinas (PKMP)
Pambansang Katipunan ng Makabayang Magbubukid (PKMM)
Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Samahan sa Kanayunan (PKSK)
Partido Manggagawa (PM)
Peace Women Partners
People’s Task Force for Bases Clean UP Philippines
Philippine Peace and Security Council (PPSC)
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM)
Pinay Kilos! (PINK!)
Progresibong Alyansa ng Mangingisda (PANGISDA)
Progressive Organization of Worker Advocates (PRO-WORKER)
Resource Center for People’s Development (RCPD)
Samahan ng Demokratikong Kabataan (SDK)
SANLAKAS
Solidarity of Unions and Labor Organizations for a New Government (SULONG)
Strategic Initiatives of Pinoys Abroad - Bangkok (SIPA)
Student Council Alliance of the Philippines (SCAP)
Task Force Food Sovereignty (TFFS)
Task Force Subic Rape (TFSR)
Teatrong Bayan
Third World Movement Against the Exploitation of Women (TW-MAE-W)
Tulung Lupah Sug, Inc.,
UP Alyansa ng mga Mag-aaral para sa Panlipunang Katwiran at Kaunlaran (UP ALYANSA)
UP Assabiyah
WEDPRO Inc.
Women and Gender Commission AMRSP
Women and Gender Institute (WAGI)
Women’s Legal Bureau, Inc (WLB)
YES to Change
Young Moro Professionals Network (YMPN)
Youth for Nationalism and Democracy (YND)
ENDORSED BY:
Jihad al Akbar
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)
Ranaw Disaster Response & Rehabilitation Assistance Center
SALAM, Incorporated
Sumpay Mindanao
TRIPOD Foundation, Inc
WomanHealth Philippines
We at Stop the War Coalition Philippines, a broad coalition of civil society organizations, social movements, labor unions, political parties, human rights, women's, students, religious and other organizations, strongly condemn Israel's war crimes against the people of Gaza and the international community.
These latest attacks are not only disproportionate, they are completely unjustifiable.
At the root of the continuing tragedy in the Middle East is the continuing illegal occupation of Palestine by Israel. That Israel is able to continue this occupation and that it is able to bomb and kill indiscriminately without restraint points to the incapacity of the international community, including the United Nations and the world's governments, to uphold peace and justice. It is this unwillingness to act that will ensure that more blood and tears will flow from this escalating war.
We in the Philippines must help stop this war not only because thousands of Filipino migrant workers are caught in the crossfire but because we have a stake in creating a world with peace and justice.
We at the Stop the War Campaign demand that Israel should immediately end its war crimes in Gaza and end the occupation of Palestine.
We demand that the United States immediately stops arming and funding Israel's war.
We call on the international community, the United Nations and all responsible international government and civil society organizations, to stop Israel from continuing its attacks and to support a just resolution to the crisis.
We demand that the Philippine government begins the process of severing all diplomatic ties with Israel until it complies with international law and ends the occupation of Palestine. At the same time, we also call for immediate relief and evacuation plans for Filipino workers in the region. We demand more jobs for Filipinos at home so that they will not be forced to seek employment in outlaw states.
As our elected representatives, our government should take a stand in favor of international law and justice, summon the Israeli ambassador to protest, and expressly condemn Israel for its actions.
We demand that Manila and other government units revoke their "sister city" ties with Israeli cities.
We call on our parliamentarians and diplomats to likewise denounce Israel's actions.
In solidarity with the Palestinian, as well as Israeli people opposed to war, we call on trade unions, universities, cultural organizations, political parties, and other social movements and civil society groups to be part of a global boycott and sanctions campaign against Israel.#
STOP THE WAR! COALITION- PHILIPPINES
MEMBERS:
Akbayan! Citizens' Action Party
Akbayan! Youth
Alab Katipunan (AK)
Alliance of Genuine Labor Organizations (AGLO)
Alliance of Progressive Labor (APL)
ALMANA
Alyansa ng Nagkakaisang Lakas ng Kabataan (ALYANSA)
Alyansa ng Sambayanan para sa Agarang Reporma (ASAP)
Anak Mindanao (AMIN)
APPRA
ASSALAM Bangsamoro
ASSALAM Party
Bagong Kamalayan Collective, Inc (BKCI)
Balay Rehabilitation Center Inc.
Bangsamoro People’s Solidarity
Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP)
Coalition Against Trafficking of Women Asia Pacific (CATW-AP)
Community Organizing and Rural Development, Inc. (Billah Islam)
Filipino Democratic Movement (FILDEM)
FOCUS on the Global South
Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC)
Gathering for Peace (GfP)
GZO Peace Institute
Institute for Popular Democracy (IPD)
International South Group Network (ISGN)
Juan Makata
Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Commission-AMRSP
K! Kalayaan NCR-BLC
KAAKBAY AFDM
KALAYAAN!
KANLUNGAN
Kilusan para sa Pambansang Demokrasya (KPD)
Kongreso ng Mamamayan Para sa Kalayaan (KOMPAK)
Laban ng Masa (LnM)
League of Urban Poor for Action (LUPA)
Liga Manggagawa (LM)
Lolas Kampanyera WW II Filipina "Comfort Women" Survivors of Japanese Military Sexual Slavery
MAKABAYAN Pilipinas
Manggagawa para sa Kalayaan ng Bayan (MAKABAYAN)
Mindanao Peoples' Peace Movement (MPPM)
Moro Human Rights Center
Movement for the Advancement of Student Power (MASP)
Pagkakaisa ng Kababaihan para sa Inang Bayan (KAISA-KA)
Pambansang Kaisahan ng Magbubukid sa Pilipinas (PKMP)
Pambansang Katipunan ng Makabayang Magbubukid (PKMM)
Pambansang Katipunan ng mga Samahan sa Kanayunan (PKSK)
Partido Manggagawa (PM)
Peace Women Partners
People’s Task Force for Bases Clean UP Philippines
Philippine Peace and Security Council (PPSC)
Philippine Rural Reconstruction Movement (PRRM)
Pinay Kilos! (PINK!)
Progresibong Alyansa ng Mangingisda (PANGISDA)
Progressive Organization of Worker Advocates (PRO-WORKER)
Resource Center for People’s Development (RCPD)
Samahan ng Demokratikong Kabataan (SDK)
SANLAKAS
Solidarity of Unions and Labor Organizations for a New Government (SULONG)
Strategic Initiatives of Pinoys Abroad - Bangkok (SIPA)
Student Council Alliance of the Philippines (SCAP)
Task Force Food Sovereignty (TFFS)
Task Force Subic Rape (TFSR)
Teatrong Bayan
Third World Movement Against the Exploitation of Women (TW-MAE-W)
Tulung Lupah Sug, Inc.,
UP Alyansa ng mga Mag-aaral para sa Panlipunang Katwiran at Kaunlaran (UP ALYANSA)
UP Assabiyah
WEDPRO Inc.
Women and Gender Commission AMRSP
Women and Gender Institute (WAGI)
Women’s Legal Bureau, Inc (WLB)
YES to Change
Young Moro Professionals Network (YMPN)
Youth for Nationalism and Democracy (YND)
ENDORSED BY:
Jihad al Akbar
Philippine Alliance of Human Rights Advocates (PAHRA)
Ranaw Disaster Response & Rehabilitation Assistance Center
SALAM, Incorporated
Sumpay Mindanao
TRIPOD Foundation, Inc
WomanHealth Philippines
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
