An Analysis on Mindanao Conflict
By JOSEPH G. AMPONG, JR.
School Principal II
Taguibo Elementary School
DepEd Butuan City Division
Every time we talk about Mindanao, one of the foremost issues that will immediately come out is conflict. This receives apathetic reactions which will lead to an expression: “So What?” The people in Mindanao are already fed up with the problem and accepted the reality. They felt helpless despite the military role to serve and protect them and the indiscriminate acts of violence by the rebel.
Mindanao is the land where the actions are and the actions are what we commonly call as “Mindanao Conflict” or “Mindanao Problem”. On the findings of the historical research of Prof. Manuel R. Tawagon (Mindanao State University – Marawi, 2004), he stated that, “the Mindanao Problem or “Moro Problem” can be roughly dated from colonial period to the late 1960’s and the Mindanao Conflict from the late 1960’s to the present”. Based on the findings, the word “war” is considered as the main ingredient of both phrases. He further details that “war” is used to describe the hostile relationship between the Moros and the Colonizers and “conflict” to describe the relationship between the Moros and the government (Military/Arm Forces of the Philippines). As cited by Tawagon, “the beauty of the two phrases despite their ugliness is that: they enriched some people, created heroes, promoted military officers, and produced graduate degree holders.”
On a large survey, people from all walks of life have been asked on their perspectives and ideas on the phrase Mindanao Problem. The following are their answers:
1. Problem of education, ignorance, and poverty.
2. Problem of imposition which may have started with the colonial policy of divide and rule. Later, it became the Low Intensity Conflict (LIC) and then, to a more sophisticated conspiracy theory. Added to this is the role played by the mass media.
3. Problem of ideologies. Communism has been contained. (The fear of the domino theory in Southeast Asia did not materialize.) Political integration of the USSR in the 1990’s has ended the threat of socialism. What remains today as a threat to U.S hegemony is Islam.
4. Problem of integration/assimilation in relation to antagonism and cultural differences/similarities.
5. Conflict of interests such as perpetuation of family dynasties; lands; power allocations; allocation of resources; unequal distribution of wealth; exploitation and development; connivance and so on and so forth.
Not all the Moro ethno linguistic groups that we know today were engaged in conspiracy. Based on the articles of James F. Warren (1985), only three groups were known:
1. The Camocunes of Sulu Archipelago who were described as cruel, barbarians, brutal and sadistic. There are no Camocunes today. They became extinct.
2. The Balangingi (Bangingi) who were described as “Fishers of Men”. They were also from Sulu Archipelago.
3. The Iranuns (Ilanuns) along the coast of Illana Bay in Mindanao. As a pirate group, they were active for one century from the middle of the 18th to the middle of the 19th century. They were the most feared not only in the Philippines but also in the Southeast Asia islands.
Warren further cited that the age of organized piracy came to an end with the introduction of technology in the 19th century. Technology refers to steam gunboats and submachine guns.
Historians label the East-West encounters as Moro Wars. In Spanish records, they are “guerras piraticas”. The so called “wars” were a product of Spanish attempt to achieve their objectives and the Moro determination to resist them. From the results of the vivid historical and ethnographic research of Filipinas Foundation, Inc. (1978), the wars lasted for over three hundred years. The following are the impact that affects our country today:
1. Military, the wars historically conditioned us to be war-like.
2. Geographically and politically, the wars polarized the archipelago into north and south. The north is always identified to be Christian, advanced, modern, and oriented to the western world. The south is identified as Muslim, relatively backward, conservative, traditional, and oriented to the Muslim world.
3. Religiously, the wars divided us into two major religious communities: Muslim and Christian. Aside from being divisive in nature, religion also breeds fanaticism and antagonism. As a result, we lose tract of the overarching value of religion.
4. Sociologically, the wars created the so- called minority- majority relations. Minority refers to the Moros and Lumads/indigenous people while the majority refers to the Christians.
5. Economically, the wars drained the sources of both the government and the sultanates. The net result: development was neglected.
6. Psychologically, the wars created the so-called Moro Image as well as Christian Image. Moro image is from the point of view of the Christians and that image is always negative. Christian image is from the point of view of the Moros and that image is also negative.
During the occupation of the American government in the Philippines, the U.S wants to develop, to civilize, to educate, and to train Filipinos in the science of self-governance. According to Peter G. Gowing (1983), Samuel K. Tan (1975) and Manuel R. Tawagon (2001), the moros reacted against American objectives with open hostility and defiance. So, to capture the trust of the moros, Americans crystallized the Integration Policy. The American government created and established the following political units or agencies:
1. Moro Province (1903-1913)
2. Department of Mindanao and Sulu (1913-1920)
3. Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes (1920-1936)
4. Office of the Commissioner for Mindanao and Sulu (1936-1946)
The problem of integration with the Muslim still continues so the Philippine Government also created the following agencies:
1. Commission on National Integration (1946-1975)
2. Office of Muslim Affairs (1975-to present)
3. Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (1988- to present)
4. Southern Philippine Council for Peace and Development (1996- 2002)
5. Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines – East Asia Growth Area (1998- to present).
In dealing with the Moros through the years (despite the policy of attraction and integration) Americans have formed their own perceptions. As stated from the historical research of Carmencita T. Aguilar (1992), Colonial perceptions of the Moros (Spanish and American) can be summarized in one statement: “The only good Moro is a dead Moro”. This statement has been embedded for generations that led to a historical conditioning or “poisoning”. Present happenings in Mindanao and Sulu keep on reminding about the statement that widens the gaps instead of bridging them. It also leads to the thickening of the walls that divides us instead of tearing it down.
When the Japanese occupied Philippines, the government was no better than the previous governments. Dr. Ralph B. Thomas (1971) said that, “Japanese government, short as it was, left another scar. That scar made the Moros more war-like, suspicious and not trusting. Yet, Moros were being blamed, branded, and accused of things not in their own making. Wars and governments were exported to them, and imposed upon them.” Historiographically, Moros were the losers, neglected, alienated, and defeated but at least not totally conquered. Because of this, they said that the show must go on.
The Philippine government offered solutions to the continuing problem in the country. Migration of settlers from Luzon and the Visayas to Mindanao was encouraged as a matter of policy. Government implemented Public Land Law discriminatory to non- Christians (Moros and wild tribes) and favorable to homesteaders and corporations. Whole of Mindanao opened to resettlement and corporate investments. To the Moros and Lumads, migration (like migraine) has been considered as a social headache. Because of Migration Policy, Mindanao will still continue to be the land of Never Ending Story of Conflict. Rudy B. Rodil (2003) cited the following reasons:
1. Population shift where the majority before (Moros and Lumads) now became a minority.
2. Power shift from Mindanaons controlling political power before but now in the hands of the settlers.
3. Landholding shift from Mindanaons to migrants and corporations.
Because of these shifts, Moros and Lumads were greatly affected. So in retrieving on what was lost on them had been costly and bloody.
The main victims of the Mindanao Conflict are truth and innocent civilians. In this scenario, all answers to the present questions for peace cannot be found in the present but rather in the past. However, solutions to the present problems cannot be found in the past but rather in the future.
To all Filipino, are we willing to respond to the aspirations of the Muslim and Lumad communities in the attainment of peace?
References:
Aguilar, Carmencita T. “American Perceptions of Mindanao and Sulu Muslims in 1899”, Mindanao Journal. Volume XIX, Nos. 1-2 (July-December 1992)
Filipinas Foundation Inc., Philippine Majority-Minority Relations and Ethnic Attitudes. Makati, Rizal: Filipinas Foundation, Inc., 1978.
Gowing, Peter G. Mandate in Moroland: The American Government of Muslim Filipinos 1899-1920. Quezon City: New Day Publishers, 1983.
Rodil, Rudy B. A Story of Mindanao and Sulu in Question and Answer. Davao City: MINCODE, 2003.
Tan, Samuel K. The Filipino Muslim Armed Struggle, 1900-1972. Makati: Filipinas Foundation, Inc., 1975.
Tawagon, Manuel R. “Spanish Perceptions of the Moros: A Historiographical Study”. Dansalan Quarterly. Vol. X, Nos. 1-2, 2001 and 2004.
Thomas, Ralph B. Muslim But Filipino: Integration of the Philippine Muslims, 1917-1946. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1971.
Warren, James F. The Sulu Zone, 1763- 1898. Quezon City: New Day Press, 1982
