Editor's note: Global attention shifted briefly this week to the south of the Philippines, when 14 soldiers were killed in clashes with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). Yet, despite this incident and the violence that has shaken the restive and impoverished - but resource-rich - south of the country in recent months, both the government and MILF remain committed to a long, stumbling peace process. The application of the right to self-determination to the Muslims of the south remains a thorny and contentious issue. Abhoud Syed M. Lingga, Chairman of the Bangsamoro People's Consultative Assembly, argues that the very application of the principle can be a solution, not an impediment, to the task of resolving decades of conflict.
The recognition of the fundamental right to self-determination can be an opportunity to resolve conflicts, whether or not they are explicitly framed as struggles for self-determination. This is particularly true in the southern Philippines, where a number of insurgent groups claim sovereign rights to territory over which the Philippine government already exercises sovereign power. Far from fuelling the bloodshed, the right to self-determination - if understood in its entirety - will open an opportunity for peace.
An undeniable right
The right to self-determination is the right of peoples everywhere to freely determine their political status. For this right to be fully effective, the realization of the political, economic, social and cultural sovereignty of peoples is crucial.
Abhoud Syed M. Lingga is Chairman of the Bangsamoro People's Consultative Assembly.
Self-determination is a perpetual process where people continue to make choices to achieve human security and to fulfill human needs.
The right of peoples to self-determination is enshrined in many United Nations instruments, including the UN charter, Articles 1 of International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and General Assembly resolution 1514, which states that "all people have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development".
What is a "people"?
According to the Report of the International Conference of Experts organized by UNESCO on November 1998, the holder of the right of self-determination are a people (a group of individual human beings) who have some or all of the following common features: (1) common historical tradition; (2) racial or ethnic identity; (3) cultural homogeneity; (4) linguistic unity; (5) religious or ideological affinity; (6) territorial connection; and (7) common economic life.
Additionally, the UNESCO conference agreed that "the group as a whole must have the will to be identified as a people or the consciousness of being a people". The people, according to the experts, must be of a certain number, which need not be large but must be more than "a mere association of individuals within a state". The existence of "institutions or other means of expressing its common characteristics and will for identity" is also important.
The sovereignty of states
While the UN seems to guarantee the right of peoples to self-determination, the UN itself is structured upon respecting a seemingly opposite principle: that of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of member states. This pillar of the UN system grates against the right of minority peoples to national recognition, because claims to self-determination usually include a claim to territory.
The international system is built on the relationships between states, not within states. How does one reconcile, then, the right to self-determination and inalienable sovereignty of states? UN literature and resolutions offer little insight into this puzzle; UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 only suggests - but does not directly state - that the territorial integrity of the state is contingent on the government being non-discriminatory and representative of the whole people.
As a result of prevalent "zero sum" understandings of the issue of self-determination (either "within" or "without"), states fear that any concessions to minorities will lead eventually to the reconfiguration of national boundaries and the loss of territory and resources.
To allay that fear, it will be useful to look at alternative ways of approaching the thorny issue. In between independence and total assimilation lies a wide range of power-sharing alternatives that the central government and minority groups can explore through negotiation and dialogue.
Bangsamoro's struggle
The people of Bangsamoro (literally, "nation for the Muslims of the Philippines") qualify under UNESCO criteria as a "people" who hold the right to self-determination, because they have a common historical tradition and religious affinity and share many cultural practices. They occupy contiguous territory (maritime societies are connected by the sea) with rich natural resources.
Before the arrival of the Spanish colonialists, Bangsamoro sultanates ruled the region, maintaining trade and diplomatic relations with other societies. They had developed well-organized administrative and political systems. Strong maritime and infantry forces defended the Bangsamoro territories from western colonial intrusion, largely preserving their independence from colonial rule.
During the American occupation, the Bangsamoro homeland was administered separately from the Philippines. When the US later decided to grant independence to the Philippines, Bangsamoro leaders asked Washington not to include the Bangsamoro territories in the future Philippine Republic. The integration of Bangsamoro territories into the Philippines in 1946 did not signal the death knell of the national struggle, but instead heralded a new era in the campaign for Bangsamoro rights and independence.
Muslims constitute only 5% of the total population of the Philippines, but are in the majority in stretches of Mindanao and the Sulu archipelago. Since the period of American rule, however, Mindanao has become a demographic battleground with the migration of Christian settlers from the northern Philippine regions of Luzon and Visayas.
[The independent Philippines only continued the policy of encouraging Christian migration into Mindanao (to the extent that Muslims are now in the minority on the island), leading to an escalation of communal tensions and, after the Jabidah massacre under the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, the outbreak of armed rebellion and civil war in the 1970s between the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the military along with its levied Christian militias. At least 65,000 people have been killed in the conflict since then.]
Negotiated peace?
The toppling of Marcos in 1986 led to a thaw in relations between the central government and the separatists, and to the agreed creation of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) via referendum in 1990. However, the design and eventual results of the referendum (in which only 4 of 13 provinces agreed to join the ARMM) were heavily disputed, with boycotts by Christian and Muslim groups, including the MNLF-splinter faction MILF.
The 1990 referendum and prior attempts at plebiscites remain, nevertheless, the basis on which solutions to the conflict must be found. Both sides to the conflict are committed to a negotiated solution. Earlier this year, the central government tabled the offer of self-determination in discussions. Both the MILF and MNLF fighters have pledged to cooperate with the Philippine army in destroying the remnants of al-Qaida affiliated terrorist group Abu Sayyaf. Despite US pressure, the Philippine government has resisted labelling MILF a terrorist group, fearing that such a brand will drive the separatists from the negotiation table.
However, the format of future referenda requires greater consideration. Choices should not be limited to "yes" or "no" answers to a single proposition; as a winner-take-all contest, referenda are doomed to eventual failure.
The referenda choice
This may be averted if the range of choice in a referendum is wider to include several potential political arrangements, such as independence, autonomy, free association, consociationalism and other power sharing arrangements.
The 1998 UNESCO conference of experts agreed that a people should be able to achieve self-determination through a "fully participatory democratic processes among the people, including referenda where appropriate".
In order for a referendum to be as participatory and democratic as possible, it should be preceded by lengthy political debate and dialogue within the given communities to ensure that citizens are aware of what the options are, are fully informed about implications of the options, and are as prepared as possible to vote in a referendum. In Southern Sudan, the referendum will take place after an interim period of six years. The referendum on Bougainville's future political status will be held not before ten years after the signing of the 2001 Bougainville Peace Agreement.
An opportunity for peace
The Bangsamoro movements call for a referendum in which the they can collectively decide their political status whether to be free and independent; to maintain the status quo; to have a federal arrangement; to set up a relationship of free association; or any other power sharing arrangement adheres to the participatory and democratic approach to determining the political status of peoples.
The Bangsamoro People's Consultative Assembly (BPCA) asks that a referendum shall be held between five and ten years after a negotiated agreement in order to allow enough time for people to debate and understand the pros and the cons of every proposition, and to provide the Philippine government time to prove the benefits of remaining part of the Philippines to the Bangsamoro people.
As signatory to United Nations instruments on the right to self-determination, the Philippines has the obligation to uphold, respect and promote this right. Constitutional and institutional barriers cannot be made the excuse to deny the Bangsamoro people this right. Sudan has amended its constitution to allow the referendum in the South, and Papua New Guinea has promised "to move amendments to the National Constitution to guarantee a referendum on Bougainville's future political status" when it signed the 2001 agreement.
Affording people the right to self-determination does not inevitably result in the dismemberment of the parent state. The referendum on Puerto Rico's political status held in 1967 resulted in a reaffirmation of commonwealth status. Leaders of the province of Nivis wanted to separate from the federation of St. Kitts and Nivis but the citizens of the province voted to stay with the federation. The two referenda in Quebec illustrated again that despite a people's strong sense of self, secession is not necessarily a logical or appealing choice in all situations.
But should a government continue to deny a people the opportunity to exercise that right or fail to make available the mechanism to exercise self-determination, it will only encourage armed conflict.
