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.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
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
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Commentary: The Incongruity of Interfaith Dialogue in Resolving the Mindanao Conflict
By Maulana "Bobby" Alonto
After it has jettisoned the previously initialed MILF-GRP Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) ostensibly in deference to the Supreme Court decision on its ‘unconstitutionality’ coupled with the national uproar generated by political and economic vested-interest groups opposed to a just political settlement of the Mindanao conflict, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines GRP) is now resorting to an anti-insurgency-driven policy.
One important component of this anti-insurgency-driven policy is cleverly mantled in the cloak of ‘Interfaith Dialogue’ to provide it an aura of ‘sanctity’. This would camouflage the real agenda that really animates the policy that the Arroyo regime is currently implementing to ‘resolve’ the Mindanao conflict.
For those who are not updated on recent developments vis-à-vis the Mindanao situation, the GRP has now shifted to a four-pronged program to deal with the Bangsamoro Problem: DDR (demobilization, disarmament and reintegration), ‘direct dialogue with communities’, interfaith dialogue, and militarization. DDR is particularly addressed to the MILF and given as a condition by the GRP for the resumption of the peace talks which the latter has unilaterally scuttled after abandoning the MOA-AD and disbanding its peace panel.
The GRP, nonetheless, openly admits to only three – DDR, ‘direct dialogue with communities’ (whatever this means) and interfaith dialogue. It is silent or evasive on militarization because this does not sit well with the international community which opposes military solutions to sovereignty-based conflicts such as the one that exists in the Bangsamoro Homeland. However, even if the GRP will not admit to the military component of its anti-insurgency-driven policy in Mindanao, the devastation that is resulting from the military operations (called police actions by the regime) being conducted by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) against the MILF and the Bangsamoro people clearly speaks for itself; what the regime denies in words cannot be denied by deeds. The 500,000 plus refugees (and still counting) in the current fighting, the appalling damage to property, the loss of civilian lives including those of helpless women and children, and the surge of AFP presence in Moro territories are a testament to the Filipino government’s putting primacy on military solution as a means to end the Bangsamoro Problem.
For the purpose of this article, however, we will focus on interfaith dialogue.
The Arroyo regime’s interfaith dialogue program in Mindanao has one significant implication. The regime is making it appear that the conflict in Mindanao is a religious conflict: a conflict between Muslims and Christians. Hence, following this premise, interfaith dialogue is resorted to in order for Muslims and Christians to understand each other’s faith and then live happily ever after. This is according to the thinking of the regime which it hopes the international community will buy.
The Moros, who are predominantly Muslim, have nothing against interfaith dialogue. As a matter of fact, all Muslims welcome dialogues with people of other faiths because this is a commandment by Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala in the Qur’an. The essence of tableegh (literally spreading good words) and da’awah (propagation) is dialogue, for without dialogue it is not possible for Muslims to engage in tableegh and da’awah with people of other faiths. History will attest to the fact that Muslims spread the Message of Islam in many parts of the world through tableegh and da’awah – meaning through dialogue – and it is only when suppression, repression, oppression, aggression and tyranny became dominant that Muslims resorted to jihaad al qaatil or the jihaad with the sword (armed struggle).
To comprehend this better - and we have explained this in our previous discourses on the same subject - it is important to note that Islam is not a mere religion as how the West views and understands religion. Islam is a deen, an all-embracing system of life based on tawhid (Islamic concept of monotheism). For want of an appropriate term in English, Islam is an ideology. And it is from this high plane of understanding and perspective that lslam should be viewed.
As an ideology, Islam harbors no enmity for other religions or people of other faiths. This is why Muslims, as demonstrated in the past, have always been tolerant of other faiths and their adherents. When the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) established the Islamic State in Madina 1500 years ago, the Jews and the Christians were among its constituency. The Constitution of Madina included them and regarded them as protected citizens (dhimmis) enjoying the same political, economic, social and religious rights as the majority Muslims. They even enjoyed certain privileges not enjoyed by Muslims like exemption from being conscripted into the Islamic army. Justice for all its citizens was (and is) the hallmark of the Islamic State regardless of religious beliefs that during the rule of Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (ra), the Fourth Khalifa-e-Rashidun, an ordinary Jewish citizen of the Islamic State won a case in the Islamic court of law against Khalifa Ali (ra) himself, the head of the Islamic State, and was promptly given what was due him by the Islamic government.
Would this be possible today under the justice system of the Philippine nation-state? If powerful congressmen and senators fail to even bring President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband and their cronies in government to court in order to account for the reported shenanigans they have committed while in power, how much more for a poor and powerless Moro Muslim peasant whose family has been massacred and whose home has been destroyed by the war policy of this regime? Indeed, the Philippine Supreme Court could not even give justice to the Bangsamoro people; so how can it be an institution of justice to which the oppressed - Moro or Filipino - can turn? Let the facts speak for themselves.
Going back to the subject of this article, there was no forced conversion under Islamic rule because the Qur’an forbids compulsion in belief (Qur’an: Surah Baqarah, Ayat 256). It was only when the Jews conspired with the enemies of Islam who were in a state of war with the Muslims that they (the recalcitrant Jews) were expelled from Madina because they had become a clear and present danger then to the security of the Islamic State.
This just treatment of Islam for people of different creeds and races was observed down through the centuries especially when Muslims were on the upper hand. After the liberation of Al Quds (Jerusalem) from the European imperialist crusaders in October 1187 by the Islamic armies under Salahudin Yusuf ibn Ayyub (Saladin), the latter restored to the Christians their churches and the Jews their synagogues after having repaired or rebuilt them as they were destroyed during the war. Such magnanimity was hitherto unheard of in Christian Europe where religious non-conformists were burned at the stake as heretics. Lest it be forgotten, too, the Muslim Moro civilization of Andalus in Spain (711-1492) was renowned throughout the known world during the Dark Ages not only for of its scientific, scholarly, literary and artistic achievements and incomparable modern cities not found elsewhere in Europe at that period but also because Muslim Spain became a haven for people of different races, faiths and political views – Christians, Jews and even agnostics – who were fleeing persecution and oppression by the intolerant Church and the European feudal states at that time.
The point is that Islam as an ideology has no quarrel with other religions. Admittedly, differences do exist between Islam and other religious beliefs. In the Qur’an, Islam is critical of both Christianity and Judaism because of their deviations from the original monotheistic message of the earlier Prophets of Allah, notably Musa (Moses) and Isa (Jesus), peace be upon them. This criticism, however, is not to arouse religious enmity but to remind Christians, Jews and Muslims alike of the pristine concept of tawhid, the monotheistic belief-system which was taught and propagated by all the Prophets of Allah, peace be upon them, and which is the well-spring of justice – justice that should govern man-Allah and man-man relationships in accordance with the prescription of Allah. Comparatively, the Qur’an has harsher judgment and verdict for the munafiqeen - the hypocrites – who are fasiqun (wrong-doers, i.e. oppressors and tyrants) who claim to be Muslims in words but disbelievers in their hearts.
This being the case, the variance between Islam and other religions has never been a cause for armed conflict or for declaring war by Muslims. So called communal wars between Muslims and Hindus did occur in India before and after partition but these were fueled by deep-seated prejudices arising out of the peculiarly oppressive social make-up of undivided India at that time which existed in the form of the caste system. For example, many of the Muslims were former ‘untouchables’, or Harijans, the lowest rung in India’s social ladder, who embraced Islam to liberate themselves from a lifetime of oppression by the higher castes which did not consider the ‘untouchables’ human nor even part of the caste system. The ‘untouchables’ were non-entities and thus ‘outcasts’. But even after becoming Muslims, the Hindus still consider them ‘outcasts’ and worse, by converting to Islam, were deemed ‘traitors’ to Mother India.
Another factor is the resentment the Hindus long held for the Moguls, the Muslims who ruled for more than 300 years and united India in 1526-1858. Though the Moguls never forced their Hindu subjects to convert to Islam and tolerated in fact the polytheism of Hinduism though polytheism (shirk) is anathema to Islam, the Hindus harbored animosity toward the Moguls - and all Muslims for that matter - because they held the belief that the egalitarian message of Islam was a threat to the caste system perpetuated by Hinduism and thus the established traditional social order in India. British colonialism later on exploited this deep-seated resentment among the Hindus in order to divide and rule India. By pitting the Muslims and the Hindus against each other during the British raj (rule), the British were able to maintain their colonial rule over the Indian sub-continent. This antagonism did not end even after the Indian Sub-Continent was partitioned into India and Pakistan in 1947. Inside India itself, the Muslims who chose to remain there as minority are being subjected to persecution and oppression by the chauvinistic Hindu ruling classes which have since been in control of the Indian government after independence. It is not Islam, therefore, that caused the religious strife that today still hounds India’s national religious communities.
What is true, however, is that Islam is in conflict with other man-made ideologies that perpetuate oppression and other manifestations of injustice. Thus, Islam has always been at war with all forms of colonialism and imperialism. It has been at war ever since it arose in the Arabian Peninsula against the mighty hegemonic empires of the world and their modern-day client dictatorships regardless of whether they are monarchies or military juntas. It does not make any distinction between Muslims, Christians, Jews or Hindus who defend and serve the interests of colonialism, neo-colonialism and imperialism or who practice tyranny. In occupied Palestine, for instance, the Muslim Palestinians are not at war with Judaism. They are at war with Zionism, a political movement that propagates the racist idea that Palestine, which Zionists call ‘Israel’, should exclusively belong to the Jews. From the point of view of Islam, all those who practice oppression are enemies because they brazenly violate the Justice of Allah. This should explain, too, why revolutionary ideological Islamic movements in many Muslim nation-states today stand in opposition to puppet governments run by Muslim elites who genuflect to the hegemonic world powers.
Having stressed that point, let me now say that by employing interfaith dialogue to end the armed conflict in Mindanao, what the Arroyo regime is actually doing is to divest the Bangsamoro Problem of its political character and present it as a religious conflict between two ‘domestic religious communities’ of the Philippine nation-state. This is far from the truth for it ignores the historical antecedents that gave rise to the present conflict in Mindanao.
The Bangsamoro Problem is a political problem. It is a conflict that involves two distinct nations: the Filipino nation and the Bangsamoro nation.
As the successors-in-interest to foreign colonialism, the Filipinos believe that the Bangsamoro homeland is part and parcel of the Philippine nation-state. This belief is akin to what the French held onto vis-à-vis Algeria when the latter was a colony of France. The French, particularly those French colonists (colons) who settled in Algeria, fanatically clung to the illusion that Algeria (North Africa) was part of France (Europe) and therefore a legitimate territory of the latter. The same mindset today prevails in the Philippines, particularly among the Filipino elite, the so-called Filipino nationalists, and Filipino settlers or their present-day descendants who chose to ignore or are ignorant of the history of the conflict in Mindanao.
On the other hand, the Bangsamoro people, who had been an independent nation under the Moro sultanates even before the creation of the Philippine nation-state in 1935 and 1946, have been invariably asserting their historic rights over their homeland and their identity as a separate people and nation. They question their unjust incorporation into the Philippine nation-state in 1946 without their democratic consent. They question the diminution of their ancestral lands and the loss of their natural resources to encroaching Filipino settlers.
They question the loss of their right to govern what is left of their ancestral homeland and live a way of life in accordance with their Islamic ideology, faith and culture. They question the gerrymandering of their traditional territories at the expense of the indigenous inhabitants. They question the right of the Filipinos to impose upon them the Filipino identity derived and manufactured from the name of the Spanish king responsible for waging more than 300 years of debilitating colonialist wars against them. They question the right of the Filipinos to impose inept, corrupt and tyrannical local rulers on them. They question the laws which are made in Manila and then imposed upon them which contravene the values of justice and morality inculcated on them by their Islamic ideology and faith. They question the modern-day wars which have been unleashed on them from time to time at the horrendous cost of tens of thousands of Moro lives lost, massive displacement and devastation of communities, and loss of livelihood and property which have aggravated their poverty and marginalization under Filipino rule.
To sum it up, the Moros question the morality and thus the legitimacy of their oppressive colonial status in the Philippine nation-state. And it is this question left unanswered and unresolved that has driven the armed resistance struggle of the Bangsamoro people since the Philippine nation-state saw the light of day.
From what has been said so far, the real picture should now come into focus for everyone to understand. To simply state it, the Mindanao conflict boils down to the collision between two principles: the Philippine nation-state’s principle of national sovereignty and territorial integrity on one hand, and the principle of Bangsamoro right of self-determination on the other.
It is these two principles on a collision course that animate the conflict and which are at the core of the Bangsamoro Problem, and not the religious differences between the Muslims and the Christians. It is a political problem that necessitates a political solution.
Interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Christians, thus, may be good and useful and should certainly be continued between Muslims and Christian to fortify their understanding of each other’s faith. But to make it among the major policy thrusts of the GRP to solve what is clearly a political problem is a diversion and deviation from resolving the real political issue confronting us, which is the Bangsamoro Problem.
In this context, the primordial concern today should not be a dialogue between ‘domestic religious communities’ but a dialogue between two colliding nations: the Philippines and the Bangsamoro. This dialogue, as a matter of necessity, must come up with a just political settlement of the Bangsamoro Problem.
Unfortunately, however, the MOA-AD, which is a product of an eleven-year dialogue between the two nations and a compromise solution to the colliding principles adhered to by the parties to the conflict, has been thrown to the wastebasket by the GRP. The MOA-AD would have been a good start to end the conflict in Mindanao once and for all.
After it has jettisoned the previously initialed MILF-GRP Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) ostensibly in deference to the Supreme Court decision on its ‘unconstitutionality’ coupled with the national uproar generated by political and economic vested-interest groups opposed to a just political settlement of the Mindanao conflict, the Government of the Republic of the Philippines GRP) is now resorting to an anti-insurgency-driven policy.
One important component of this anti-insurgency-driven policy is cleverly mantled in the cloak of ‘Interfaith Dialogue’ to provide it an aura of ‘sanctity’. This would camouflage the real agenda that really animates the policy that the Arroyo regime is currently implementing to ‘resolve’ the Mindanao conflict.
For those who are not updated on recent developments vis-à-vis the Mindanao situation, the GRP has now shifted to a four-pronged program to deal with the Bangsamoro Problem: DDR (demobilization, disarmament and reintegration), ‘direct dialogue with communities’, interfaith dialogue, and militarization. DDR is particularly addressed to the MILF and given as a condition by the GRP for the resumption of the peace talks which the latter has unilaterally scuttled after abandoning the MOA-AD and disbanding its peace panel.
The GRP, nonetheless, openly admits to only three – DDR, ‘direct dialogue with communities’ (whatever this means) and interfaith dialogue. It is silent or evasive on militarization because this does not sit well with the international community which opposes military solutions to sovereignty-based conflicts such as the one that exists in the Bangsamoro Homeland. However, even if the GRP will not admit to the military component of its anti-insurgency-driven policy in Mindanao, the devastation that is resulting from the military operations (called police actions by the regime) being conducted by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) against the MILF and the Bangsamoro people clearly speaks for itself; what the regime denies in words cannot be denied by deeds. The 500,000 plus refugees (and still counting) in the current fighting, the appalling damage to property, the loss of civilian lives including those of helpless women and children, and the surge of AFP presence in Moro territories are a testament to the Filipino government’s putting primacy on military solution as a means to end the Bangsamoro Problem.
For the purpose of this article, however, we will focus on interfaith dialogue.
The Arroyo regime’s interfaith dialogue program in Mindanao has one significant implication. The regime is making it appear that the conflict in Mindanao is a religious conflict: a conflict between Muslims and Christians. Hence, following this premise, interfaith dialogue is resorted to in order for Muslims and Christians to understand each other’s faith and then live happily ever after. This is according to the thinking of the regime which it hopes the international community will buy.
The Moros, who are predominantly Muslim, have nothing against interfaith dialogue. As a matter of fact, all Muslims welcome dialogues with people of other faiths because this is a commandment by Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala in the Qur’an. The essence of tableegh (literally spreading good words) and da’awah (propagation) is dialogue, for without dialogue it is not possible for Muslims to engage in tableegh and da’awah with people of other faiths. History will attest to the fact that Muslims spread the Message of Islam in many parts of the world through tableegh and da’awah – meaning through dialogue – and it is only when suppression, repression, oppression, aggression and tyranny became dominant that Muslims resorted to jihaad al qaatil or the jihaad with the sword (armed struggle).
To comprehend this better - and we have explained this in our previous discourses on the same subject - it is important to note that Islam is not a mere religion as how the West views and understands religion. Islam is a deen, an all-embracing system of life based on tawhid (Islamic concept of monotheism). For want of an appropriate term in English, Islam is an ideology. And it is from this high plane of understanding and perspective that lslam should be viewed.
As an ideology, Islam harbors no enmity for other religions or people of other faiths. This is why Muslims, as demonstrated in the past, have always been tolerant of other faiths and their adherents. When the Holy Prophet Muhammad (saw) established the Islamic State in Madina 1500 years ago, the Jews and the Christians were among its constituency. The Constitution of Madina included them and regarded them as protected citizens (dhimmis) enjoying the same political, economic, social and religious rights as the majority Muslims. They even enjoyed certain privileges not enjoyed by Muslims like exemption from being conscripted into the Islamic army. Justice for all its citizens was (and is) the hallmark of the Islamic State regardless of religious beliefs that during the rule of Hazrat Ali ibn Abu Talib (ra), the Fourth Khalifa-e-Rashidun, an ordinary Jewish citizen of the Islamic State won a case in the Islamic court of law against Khalifa Ali (ra) himself, the head of the Islamic State, and was promptly given what was due him by the Islamic government.
Would this be possible today under the justice system of the Philippine nation-state? If powerful congressmen and senators fail to even bring President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo and her husband and their cronies in government to court in order to account for the reported shenanigans they have committed while in power, how much more for a poor and powerless Moro Muslim peasant whose family has been massacred and whose home has been destroyed by the war policy of this regime? Indeed, the Philippine Supreme Court could not even give justice to the Bangsamoro people; so how can it be an institution of justice to which the oppressed - Moro or Filipino - can turn? Let the facts speak for themselves.
Going back to the subject of this article, there was no forced conversion under Islamic rule because the Qur’an forbids compulsion in belief (Qur’an: Surah Baqarah, Ayat 256). It was only when the Jews conspired with the enemies of Islam who were in a state of war with the Muslims that they (the recalcitrant Jews) were expelled from Madina because they had become a clear and present danger then to the security of the Islamic State.
This just treatment of Islam for people of different creeds and races was observed down through the centuries especially when Muslims were on the upper hand. After the liberation of Al Quds (Jerusalem) from the European imperialist crusaders in October 1187 by the Islamic armies under Salahudin Yusuf ibn Ayyub (Saladin), the latter restored to the Christians their churches and the Jews their synagogues after having repaired or rebuilt them as they were destroyed during the war. Such magnanimity was hitherto unheard of in Christian Europe where religious non-conformists were burned at the stake as heretics. Lest it be forgotten, too, the Muslim Moro civilization of Andalus in Spain (711-1492) was renowned throughout the known world during the Dark Ages not only for of its scientific, scholarly, literary and artistic achievements and incomparable modern cities not found elsewhere in Europe at that period but also because Muslim Spain became a haven for people of different races, faiths and political views – Christians, Jews and even agnostics – who were fleeing persecution and oppression by the intolerant Church and the European feudal states at that time.
The point is that Islam as an ideology has no quarrel with other religions. Admittedly, differences do exist between Islam and other religious beliefs. In the Qur’an, Islam is critical of both Christianity and Judaism because of their deviations from the original monotheistic message of the earlier Prophets of Allah, notably Musa (Moses) and Isa (Jesus), peace be upon them. This criticism, however, is not to arouse religious enmity but to remind Christians, Jews and Muslims alike of the pristine concept of tawhid, the monotheistic belief-system which was taught and propagated by all the Prophets of Allah, peace be upon them, and which is the well-spring of justice – justice that should govern man-Allah and man-man relationships in accordance with the prescription of Allah. Comparatively, the Qur’an has harsher judgment and verdict for the munafiqeen - the hypocrites – who are fasiqun (wrong-doers, i.e. oppressors and tyrants) who claim to be Muslims in words but disbelievers in their hearts.
This being the case, the variance between Islam and other religions has never been a cause for armed conflict or for declaring war by Muslims. So called communal wars between Muslims and Hindus did occur in India before and after partition but these were fueled by deep-seated prejudices arising out of the peculiarly oppressive social make-up of undivided India at that time which existed in the form of the caste system. For example, many of the Muslims were former ‘untouchables’, or Harijans, the lowest rung in India’s social ladder, who embraced Islam to liberate themselves from a lifetime of oppression by the higher castes which did not consider the ‘untouchables’ human nor even part of the caste system. The ‘untouchables’ were non-entities and thus ‘outcasts’. But even after becoming Muslims, the Hindus still consider them ‘outcasts’ and worse, by converting to Islam, were deemed ‘traitors’ to Mother India.
Another factor is the resentment the Hindus long held for the Moguls, the Muslims who ruled for more than 300 years and united India in 1526-1858. Though the Moguls never forced their Hindu subjects to convert to Islam and tolerated in fact the polytheism of Hinduism though polytheism (shirk) is anathema to Islam, the Hindus harbored animosity toward the Moguls - and all Muslims for that matter - because they held the belief that the egalitarian message of Islam was a threat to the caste system perpetuated by Hinduism and thus the established traditional social order in India. British colonialism later on exploited this deep-seated resentment among the Hindus in order to divide and rule India. By pitting the Muslims and the Hindus against each other during the British raj (rule), the British were able to maintain their colonial rule over the Indian sub-continent. This antagonism did not end even after the Indian Sub-Continent was partitioned into India and Pakistan in 1947. Inside India itself, the Muslims who chose to remain there as minority are being subjected to persecution and oppression by the chauvinistic Hindu ruling classes which have since been in control of the Indian government after independence. It is not Islam, therefore, that caused the religious strife that today still hounds India’s national religious communities.
What is true, however, is that Islam is in conflict with other man-made ideologies that perpetuate oppression and other manifestations of injustice. Thus, Islam has always been at war with all forms of colonialism and imperialism. It has been at war ever since it arose in the Arabian Peninsula against the mighty hegemonic empires of the world and their modern-day client dictatorships regardless of whether they are monarchies or military juntas. It does not make any distinction between Muslims, Christians, Jews or Hindus who defend and serve the interests of colonialism, neo-colonialism and imperialism or who practice tyranny. In occupied Palestine, for instance, the Muslim Palestinians are not at war with Judaism. They are at war with Zionism, a political movement that propagates the racist idea that Palestine, which Zionists call ‘Israel’, should exclusively belong to the Jews. From the point of view of Islam, all those who practice oppression are enemies because they brazenly violate the Justice of Allah. This should explain, too, why revolutionary ideological Islamic movements in many Muslim nation-states today stand in opposition to puppet governments run by Muslim elites who genuflect to the hegemonic world powers.
Having stressed that point, let me now say that by employing interfaith dialogue to end the armed conflict in Mindanao, what the Arroyo regime is actually doing is to divest the Bangsamoro Problem of its political character and present it as a religious conflict between two ‘domestic religious communities’ of the Philippine nation-state. This is far from the truth for it ignores the historical antecedents that gave rise to the present conflict in Mindanao.
The Bangsamoro Problem is a political problem. It is a conflict that involves two distinct nations: the Filipino nation and the Bangsamoro nation.
As the successors-in-interest to foreign colonialism, the Filipinos believe that the Bangsamoro homeland is part and parcel of the Philippine nation-state. This belief is akin to what the French held onto vis-à-vis Algeria when the latter was a colony of France. The French, particularly those French colonists (colons) who settled in Algeria, fanatically clung to the illusion that Algeria (North Africa) was part of France (Europe) and therefore a legitimate territory of the latter. The same mindset today prevails in the Philippines, particularly among the Filipino elite, the so-called Filipino nationalists, and Filipino settlers or their present-day descendants who chose to ignore or are ignorant of the history of the conflict in Mindanao.
On the other hand, the Bangsamoro people, who had been an independent nation under the Moro sultanates even before the creation of the Philippine nation-state in 1935 and 1946, have been invariably asserting their historic rights over their homeland and their identity as a separate people and nation. They question their unjust incorporation into the Philippine nation-state in 1946 without their democratic consent. They question the diminution of their ancestral lands and the loss of their natural resources to encroaching Filipino settlers.
They question the loss of their right to govern what is left of their ancestral homeland and live a way of life in accordance with their Islamic ideology, faith and culture. They question the gerrymandering of their traditional territories at the expense of the indigenous inhabitants. They question the right of the Filipinos to impose upon them the Filipino identity derived and manufactured from the name of the Spanish king responsible for waging more than 300 years of debilitating colonialist wars against them. They question the right of the Filipinos to impose inept, corrupt and tyrannical local rulers on them. They question the laws which are made in Manila and then imposed upon them which contravene the values of justice and morality inculcated on them by their Islamic ideology and faith. They question the modern-day wars which have been unleashed on them from time to time at the horrendous cost of tens of thousands of Moro lives lost, massive displacement and devastation of communities, and loss of livelihood and property which have aggravated their poverty and marginalization under Filipino rule.
To sum it up, the Moros question the morality and thus the legitimacy of their oppressive colonial status in the Philippine nation-state. And it is this question left unanswered and unresolved that has driven the armed resistance struggle of the Bangsamoro people since the Philippine nation-state saw the light of day.
From what has been said so far, the real picture should now come into focus for everyone to understand. To simply state it, the Mindanao conflict boils down to the collision between two principles: the Philippine nation-state’s principle of national sovereignty and territorial integrity on one hand, and the principle of Bangsamoro right of self-determination on the other.
It is these two principles on a collision course that animate the conflict and which are at the core of the Bangsamoro Problem, and not the religious differences between the Muslims and the Christians. It is a political problem that necessitates a political solution.
Interfaith dialogue between Muslims and Christians, thus, may be good and useful and should certainly be continued between Muslims and Christian to fortify their understanding of each other’s faith. But to make it among the major policy thrusts of the GRP to solve what is clearly a political problem is a diversion and deviation from resolving the real political issue confronting us, which is the Bangsamoro Problem.
In this context, the primordial concern today should not be a dialogue between ‘domestic religious communities’ but a dialogue between two colliding nations: the Philippines and the Bangsamoro. This dialogue, as a matter of necessity, must come up with a just political settlement of the Bangsamoro Problem.
Unfortunately, however, the MOA-AD, which is a product of an eleven-year dialogue between the two nations and a compromise solution to the colliding principles adhered to by the parties to the conflict, has been thrown to the wastebasket by the GRP. The MOA-AD would have been a good start to end the conflict in Mindanao once and for all.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Commentary: INCREASING MYSTERIOUS MASSACRES OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS
By Mike G. Kulat
The massacre that happened in Sitio Udsodan in Barangay Mudseng, Midsayap, North Cotabato on November 12, 2008 brings the total number into three attacks on innocent civilians aside from the victims of the ongoing military operation in different parts of Mindanao. It should be recalled that in early November a massacre in Magsayasay, Lanoa Del Norte happened that followed by another ambush in Pikit, Cotabato area.
In an interview conducted by the members of the Bangsamoro Center for Just Peace, a network organization of the Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society with the lone survivor, Noraisa Dimalulon, it was learned that they were on board a manually operated banca (boat) at around last November 12 at 10:00 a. m. towards their rice field. When they were nearing their farm, suddenly undetermined number of armed men wearing black masks opened fire at them using high caliber firearms. It was found out later that the culprits used M-14 and other high powered firearms as shown by the empty shells left in the crime scene.
Killed in the incident were Adtega Dimalulon 40, Ali Kansa 35 and Tungan Dimalulon 5. The bodies of the victims were only recovered the following day as their relatives were restricted by the military to go to the area pending their ascertaining the identity of the victims and assurance that they are not members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
Noraisa narrated that at the first burst of the gunfire, she jumped out of the boat and swam away until she found a floating wooden block where she hid her head and that prevented her from being hit by bullets. After the firing ended she swam to farther to the bank and ran towards far-flung Barangay Nabalawag and finally found her way home at around 11:00 a. m. She revealed farther that her hand bag containing her mobile phone, earrings, cash and other valuables left in the boat were taken by the armed men.
These series of mysterious killings of civilians in the different parts of Mindanao were not given proper course by the duly constituted authorities or any legal actions to give justice to the victims. The incidences are also taking place at a time when there is much talk about the resurgence of the “ILAGA” movements in different parts of Mindanao. The movements are obviously, deliberately or not, being backed by the government through distribution of firearms to civilians that is spearheaded by Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Ronaldo Puno.
The massacre that happened in Sitio Udsodan in Barangay Mudseng, Midsayap, North Cotabato on November 12, 2008 brings the total number into three attacks on innocent civilians aside from the victims of the ongoing military operation in different parts of Mindanao. It should be recalled that in early November a massacre in Magsayasay, Lanoa Del Norte happened that followed by another ambush in Pikit, Cotabato area.
In an interview conducted by the members of the Bangsamoro Center for Just Peace, a network organization of the Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society with the lone survivor, Noraisa Dimalulon, it was learned that they were on board a manually operated banca (boat) at around last November 12 at 10:00 a. m. towards their rice field. When they were nearing their farm, suddenly undetermined number of armed men wearing black masks opened fire at them using high caliber firearms. It was found out later that the culprits used M-14 and other high powered firearms as shown by the empty shells left in the crime scene.
Killed in the incident were Adtega Dimalulon 40, Ali Kansa 35 and Tungan Dimalulon 5. The bodies of the victims were only recovered the following day as their relatives were restricted by the military to go to the area pending their ascertaining the identity of the victims and assurance that they are not members of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF).
Noraisa narrated that at the first burst of the gunfire, she jumped out of the boat and swam away until she found a floating wooden block where she hid her head and that prevented her from being hit by bullets. After the firing ended she swam to farther to the bank and ran towards far-flung Barangay Nabalawag and finally found her way home at around 11:00 a. m. She revealed farther that her hand bag containing her mobile phone, earrings, cash and other valuables left in the boat were taken by the armed men.
These series of mysterious killings of civilians in the different parts of Mindanao were not given proper course by the duly constituted authorities or any legal actions to give justice to the victims. The incidences are also taking place at a time when there is much talk about the resurgence of the “ILAGA” movements in different parts of Mindanao. The movements are obviously, deliberately or not, being backed by the government through distribution of firearms to civilians that is spearheaded by Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) Secretary Ronaldo Puno.
Friday, November 28, 2008
News: Civilians continue to suffer from AFP air strikes
By Mike G. Kulat
Four more civilians, all women were victims of indiscriminate air strikes from the Armed Forces of the Philippines' OV-10 bombers in Maguindanao areas.
In an interview conducted by members of the Tiyakap Kalilintad of the Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society with the victims, it was learned that Hadja Sapia Samad together with seven other members of the family were inside their house in Barangay Liyab, Mamasapano in Maguindanao Province when two OV-10 bombers started to dropped bombs in their community. The first bomb dropped a few meters away from their house but did not explode at around 2:40 PM on November 18, 2008.
The immediate reaction of the family was to vacate their house fearing that the next bomb to be dropped will already hit their house. So the whole family members ran and hide under the coconut trees thinking they will be safe. The bomber planes were able to drop and explode around eight bombs in the area and to their surprise, the next bomb exploded a couple of meters away from where they were hiding. The bombing was followed by long burst of machine gun fires from same war planes.
As a result, Hadja Sapia Samad; Fatima Kamensa, 12 year old; Hadja Zahra Zangkala, 43 year old; Sarah Samad, 23 years old and 5-month pregnant all sustained wounds in different parts of their bodies from a bomb splinters. They were immediately brought to a Rural Clinic in Poblacion Datu Piang, Maguindanao for medication. The bombing also resulted to the evacuation of all the residents of Barangay Liyab that added to the continuously increasing number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in different parts of the province.
On August 19, 2008 at between 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, a group of men believed to be military men as manifested by their military uniforms arrived in the Rural Clinic and tried to convince the victims to be transferred and treated at Camp Siongco Military Hospital in Awang, Datu Odin Sinsuat, Shariff Kabunsuan.
The victims highly doubted on the intention to transfer them into a military hospital and so they refused the offer. On this, accordingly the military instead instructed the victims that when they are asked about their plight they should deny that they were hit by bombs instead claim to be victims of crossfire.
Tiyakap Kalilintad members who conducted the interviews also asked several residents if there were encounters occurred in the area on that date or the previous days but they denied any otherwise they could have vacated the area.
Four more civilians, all women were victims of indiscriminate air strikes from the Armed Forces of the Philippines' OV-10 bombers in Maguindanao areas.
In an interview conducted by members of the Tiyakap Kalilintad of the Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society with the victims, it was learned that Hadja Sapia Samad together with seven other members of the family were inside their house in Barangay Liyab, Mamasapano in Maguindanao Province when two OV-10 bombers started to dropped bombs in their community. The first bomb dropped a few meters away from their house but did not explode at around 2:40 PM on November 18, 2008.
The immediate reaction of the family was to vacate their house fearing that the next bomb to be dropped will already hit their house. So the whole family members ran and hide under the coconut trees thinking they will be safe. The bomber planes were able to drop and explode around eight bombs in the area and to their surprise, the next bomb exploded a couple of meters away from where they were hiding. The bombing was followed by long burst of machine gun fires from same war planes.
As a result, Hadja Sapia Samad; Fatima Kamensa, 12 year old; Hadja Zahra Zangkala, 43 year old; Sarah Samad, 23 years old and 5-month pregnant all sustained wounds in different parts of their bodies from a bomb splinters. They were immediately brought to a Rural Clinic in Poblacion Datu Piang, Maguindanao for medication. The bombing also resulted to the evacuation of all the residents of Barangay Liyab that added to the continuously increasing number of internally displaced persons (IDPs) in different parts of the province.
On August 19, 2008 at between 7:00 AM to 9:00 AM, a group of men believed to be military men as manifested by their military uniforms arrived in the Rural Clinic and tried to convince the victims to be transferred and treated at Camp Siongco Military Hospital in Awang, Datu Odin Sinsuat, Shariff Kabunsuan.
The victims highly doubted on the intention to transfer them into a military hospital and so they refused the offer. On this, accordingly the military instead instructed the victims that when they are asked about their plight they should deny that they were hit by bombs instead claim to be victims of crossfire.
Tiyakap Kalilintad members who conducted the interviews also asked several residents if there were encounters occurred in the area on that date or the previous days but they denied any otherwise they could have vacated the area.
Monday, November 17, 2008
News: Villar out, Enrile in, as Philippine Senate President
By Taher G. Solaiman
Senator Manuel Villar has resigned today from his post as President of the Philippine Senate.
Villar said he resigned from his post when learned that he no longer had the support of majority of his fellow senators.
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile replaced Villar as Senate President.
Villar lost the confidence of his fellow senators after he was implicated in the controversial C-5 road extension in Manila.
Senator Manuel Villar has resigned today from his post as President of the Philippine Senate.
Villar said he resigned from his post when learned that he no longer had the support of majority of his fellow senators.
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile replaced Villar as Senate President.
Villar lost the confidence of his fellow senators after he was implicated in the controversial C-5 road extension in Manila.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
