| |
EVOLUTION OF THE ARMED CONFLICT
ON THE MORO FRONT * |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| By Atty. Soliman M. Santos, Jr. |
The contemporary armed
conflict on the Moro front is
the sharpest expression of the
Moro or Bangsamoro problem:
the historical and systematic
marginalization and minoritization of the Islamized
ethnolinguistic groups, collectively called Moros,
in their own homeland in much of the Mindanao
islands, by Spain (from the 16th to the 19th century),
the US (in the first half of the 20th century), and more
recently by successor Philippine governments since
formal independence in 1946. It might be viewed as
a clash between two imagined nations or nationalisms,
Filipino and Moro, each with their own narratives
of the conflict. For the Moro liberation fronts, it
has been a conscious struggle to regain the historical sovereignty of the independent Moro nation-states
called sultanates over their old homeland. For the
Philippine government (henceforth, GRP) and
nation-state of the 20th century, it has been a matter
of defending the territorial integrity of the country
against secession and dismemberment among the
three main island regions of Luzon, Visayas and
Mindanao. This has made the conflict a veritable case
of “irresistible forces, immovable objects.”
Historical roots
Both Spanish and American colonial regimes had
to contend with small but fiercely independent sovereign
nation-states (sultanates) of the main Moro ethnolinguistic
tribes. Islam had arrived in Sulu in the last
quarter of the 13th century and the Sulu sultanate was
established in 1451, more than a century before the start
of the Spanish period in 1565. The Spanish colonial
period was marked by bitter Spanish-Moro wars (the
so-called “Moro Wars”) fought in six stages spanning
four centuries. The colonialists called the Muslim natives “Moros” after their hated enemy, the “Moors,” who had
previously ruled Spain for eight centuries. The Spaniards
fostered Christianized indio (Filipino) prejudice against
Moros through such cultural institutions as the “moromoro”
plays.
American rule started in the Philippines in 1898
and military pacification of the Moros began in 1903
with the organization of the Moro Province, a military
government distinct from that for the rest of the
Philippines. Though the Moro people had remained
free of Spain, by 1913 Christian and Muslim Filipinos
were, by force of arms, under a single government and
sovereignty. At that time, an American colonial official
in charge of Moro affairs defined the Moro problem
as the question of “method or form of administration
by which the Moros… can be governed to their best
interest… for their gradual advancement in culture
and civilization, so that in the course of a reasonable
time they can be admitted into the general government
of the Philippine islands as qualified members of a
republican national organization.” One might say that
the post-colonial Philippine government’s definition of the Moro problem remains essentially the same,
including its corresponding policy solution of national
integration.
Philippine independence in 1946 marked
full-fledged Filipino nation-statehood. Because
Moroland was incorporated into Philippine
territory, however (or annexed, as some Moro
nationalists would say), this event also sealed the
loss of Moro independence.
Muslim (1994) sums up the historical roots
and contemporary causes of the Moro problem
listing 10 foundational causes from 1898 to
1972. Historical roots include (1) the forcible/ illegal annexation of Moroland to the Philippines
under the Treaty of Paris in 1898; (2) military
pacification; (3) imposition of confiscatory land
laws; (4) indionization (or Filipinization) of public
administration in Moroland and the destruction of
traditional political institutions; (5) governmentfinanced/ induced land settlement and migration
to Moroland; (6) land-grabbing/conflicts; and
(7) cultural inroads against the Moros [Box 2.1].
Contemporary causes are (8) the Jabidah Massacre
in 1968; (9) Ilaga (Christian vigilante) and military
atrocities in 1970-72; and (10) government neglect
and inaction on Moro protests and grievances. The
triggering event of the contemporary Moro armed
struggle was President Ferdinand E. Marcos’s
declaration of martial law on September 21, 1972. |
| *From the Human Development Report 2005. Published by the Human Development Network (HDN) in cooperation with United Nations Development Progamme (UNDP) and New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID). |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
Source: http://hdr.undp.org/docs/reports/national/PHI_Philippines/Philippines_2005_en.pdf
Used with permission by the author. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
More to the Point |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
Directory |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
