Andreas Notter Freed, Not Rescued

Analysis by MindaNews columnist Patricio P. Diaz

Part 1:
http://www.mindanews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6300&Itemid=92

Part 2:
http://www.mindanews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6302&Itemid=92

Part 3:
http://www.mindanews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6307&Itemid=92

BISAG UNSA: Identity politics and the struggle for peace in Mindanao

by Macario D. Tiu/MindaNews

(Translation of a paper read in Cebuano at the 2009 International Conference, Philippine Political Science Association, with theme: “Reimagining the Nation-State: Consensus and Conflict on Sovereignty and Autonomy,” General Santos City, April 3-4 2009)

While in Manila for a conference two years ago, my writer friends and I talked about sundry things when the Mindanao issue cropped up. At that time, the terms Bangsamoro Juridical Entity (BJE) and Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) were just being floated around. But my Ilocano writer friend already had a definite position on it.

Said he: “For the first time in my life, I’m going to volunteer to serve our country. I’ve never done this before. Not even during the Second World War. But now, I’m going to do it.”

“Volunteer to do what?” I asked.

He said he was going to volunteer to become a soldier and defend the Republic of the Philippines. The Moros, he said, want to dismember the country, and he will never allow it.

I asked: “Why, what’s your interest in Mindanao? Do you have relatives there? Are you doing any business there?”

He said: “What do you mean do I have interests in Mindanao. I’m a Filipino. I’m protecting my country.”
“Protect it from whom?” I asked. “Who’s invading us?”

My Zamboangueño writer friend chimed in. He said: “We Zamboangueños have always considered the Moros our enemy. For centuries they’ve been trying to get Zamboanga and for centuries we’ve been fighting them off. Zamboanga is ours. We will never give it to them.”

“How about the Ilocanos? Do you consider any part of Mindanao, yours?” I asked the Ilocano.

“As a Filipino, I do,” he answered without hesitation.

Further questioning showed my Ilocano friend had no personal stake in Mindanao. He had no relatives in Mindanao, he had no business concern in Mindanao, and he had no plans to settle in Mindanao. He was simply operating from the framework of being a Filipino citizen whose duty it is to defend the motherland from any threat.

But the Zamboangueño’s reaction was gut level. Zamboanga was his home and he will not give it to anybody. He felt and knew deep in his bones that as a Zamboangueño, he owns Zamboanga.

So I asked, “What if the Moros don’t include Zamboanga? What if they will claim only those that they own? That is, areas that have an all-Moro population, areas that have no other claimants except the Moros?”

He said that is difficult to determine, almost impossible. I cited Jolo Island, where the native population is Tausug Moro. “They’re not stealing it from anybody, are they?” I asked. “If Zamboanga belongs to you, then Jolo belongs to the Tausugs. Agree or disagree?”

After some thinking, the Zamboangueño writer said: “Well, okay. That I will concede. The Tausugs do own Jolo.”

But he resisted the idea of dividing the big island of Mindanao itself to give way to the Bangsamoro. He said the population is so mixed up it is impossible to separate the different tribes from each other, not to mention the settlers who have penetrated deep into the original tribal territories.

“You mean,” I asked, “there are no areas that have Maguindanao or Maranao majority?”

He conceded that indeed there are still areas in Mindanao where the Moros constitute the absolute majority. But he feared they might demand more territory. What if, I followed up, they only want to get what is theirs? He said delineating the boundaries would be very difficult. To which I agreed. But I said, isn’t it better to break our heads at the negotiating table rather than at the battlefield? And he said,

“Okay, I’m listening.” So, at least he was now open to negotiate what is “theirs” and what is “his.”

The Ilocano writer, meanwhile, merely listened as I probed into the Zamboangueño’s positionality. I wondered what other framework, political theory, or social doctrine my Ilocano friend was going to cite to strengthen his resolve to bear arms and fight the Moros in Mindanao.

The Ilocos is too far away. The Moros are not claiming the Ilocos. But apparently the idea that he was a Filipino and that Mindanao is part of the Philippines was enough to stir up his nationalist sentiments, and so at age eighty or ninety he is ready to go to battle to save the territorial integrity of the country..

Not surprisingly, my students in Discourse Analysis had varied reactions to the text of the MOA-AD. One Davao-born student of mixed Lumad and settler parentage couldn’t imagine dividing the Philippines, certainly not Mindanao! She wouldn’t give an inch of territory to the Moros because, she was very sure, they would demand more. They might include Davao, where the Moros have an infinitesimal presence.

“Kung ayaw nila sa Pilipinas, paalisin sila, paalisin!” she said. When told that the Moros are natives of Mindanao, she seemed surprised. But her bottom line was that any arrangement with the Moros should be within the framework of the Republic of the Philippines, not outside it.

In that class I also had a mainland Chinese student whose position on the Moro issue mirrored his view on Tibet, which matched the view of the Chinese government -- Tibet belongs to China, and the Tibetans are Chinese. I pointed out to him that the Tibetans do not consider themselves Chinese; they dress differently, they have a different language, and a different religion. “No, no,” he said. “They are Chinese.
They are not Han Chinese. They’re a different kind of Chinese. But still Chinese.”

I said, “Okey, the Tibetans say they are Tibetans and not Chinese. And you say, they are Chinese. Who decides their identity?” And my mainland Chinese student said, “Okay, you don’t agree, then fight! Let’s fight.”

He didn’t mean me and him, he meant the opposing parties – the Chinese government and the Tibetans.
“Fighting decides identity issues?” I asked. “Of course,” was his quick reply.

I was rather surprised by his hawkish stance and power talk, but on reflection, it’s actually the same thinking that animates government policy on the Moro issue as expressed in the total war policy, all-out war policy, and what other war policy to defend such noble principles as constitutionality, territorial integrity, national sovereignty, etc. It’s the same stance taken by my Ilocano friend.

But not all of my students had a statist, Filipinist position. Surprisingly a Manileño was all for giving the Moros their own territory. He didn’t worry at all about the constitution and other legal complications, the problematic territorial division, the economic viability of a bangsamoro republic. Or whether the new political entity should be merely autonomous, part of a federation, or completely independent. What he worried about is whether that will buy peace in Mindanao. “If they’re not Filipinos, then they’re not Filipinos,” he said. “And if it’s their territory, then it’s their territory,” he added.

My Manileño student’s attitude reminded me of an interesting incident at an international conference I attended several years ago. A hefty woman in her brilliant sari suddenly stood up when a diminutive man who looked southeast Asian – he could pass for a Filipino, Indonesian, or Thai – introduced himself as a Naga to the entire body.

“What do you mean you are Naga. You are Indian!” the woman boomed indignantly.

“I am not Indian. I am Naga!” the Naga man said defiantly.

This exchange went for about a minute or so, with the tall Indian woman getting more agitated, and the short Naga man standing his ground. “I am Naga. I am not Indian,” he insisted with his chin up.
So we had this curious spectacle of a tall mixed Aryan-Dravidian, typically Bombay-looking woman staring down at a small Tibeto-Burmese Naga man who proudly insisted he was not Indian but Naga.

Finally, the Indian woman said: “Okay, if you are Naga, show me your passport that proves you are Naga. Show me your passport.”

The man, of course, could not show his Naga passport, and so the Indian woman sat down in triumph. But the Naga man said: “With or without a Naga passport, I am Naga.”

Political scientists know the nature of the conflict between the Indian and the Naga. The Indian woman was working within a political framework – the framework of a legal, internationally recognized, citizenship identity as proven by her passport, while the Naga was operating within a social framework -- his ethnic, minority nationality identity that has no legal, national, or state personality under international law.
Like the Nagas of northeastern India, the Moros have no passport to show they are Moros. But they insist they are Moros, not Filipinos. Who decides what their identity should be, and how is it to be decided? Do we insist that they are Filipinos because they live in a territory internationally recognized as part of the Philippine Republic? Do we want to go the way my mainland Chinese student has suggested? “You don’t agree, then fight!”

In fact, our government has followed that route for a long, long time already, following a policy instituted by the Spanish and American colonial governments. For decades now, hundreds of thousands have been killed, and thousands upon thousands more have been displaced in pursuit of that policy, adding to the misery of people already burdened by poverty and underdevelopment.

Government is an impersonal, almost abstract entity, but at bottom it is still composed of people who are supposed to represent the will of the majority. I wonder, does the government position on the Moro demand represent the thinking of the majority of Filipinos? Do majority of the Filipinos insist that Moros are Filipinos?

If so, how do we explain the fact that a lot of Filipinos themselves do not want to be Filipinos? Indeed, thousands have resigned as Filipinos or are planning to resign as Filipinos and migrate abroad. Why do they want the Moros to become Filipinos? It seems to me many Moros do not want to be Filipinos, but they do not want to migrate, either. They just want to stay in their own homeland and have control over it.

That Mindanao continues to bleed reflects the fact that all approaches and solutions that have been tried so far have failed to solve the fundamental issue of the Moro’s demand for a homeland of their own. This is a centuries-old dream that refuses to die, and those of us who struggle for peace in Mindanao should confront it squarely if we want peace in our country..

The conference theme counterposing sovereignty and autonomy seems to do just that, but may I add another perspective? The term sovereignty carries with it a concatenation of weighty principles such as constitutionality, inviolability of territorial integrity, nationalism, etc. As we have seen, these principles are upheld not only by government, but also by a host of individuals who will volunteer to defend them.

On the other hand, autonomy is only one option of another fundamental principle: the people’s right to self-determination. The concept of people carries with it a concatenation of weighty principles such as identity, ethnicity, homeland, and nationhood. As we know these principles act as powerful motivators to many people to volunteer to fight, not only in Mindanao, but also all over the world. Furthermore, we know that when conditions are ripe, these people will push the right to self-determination to its logical conclusion: secession and the formation of a new, independent country.

Autonomy can be accommodated within sovereignty. But secession directly challenges an existing sovereignty because it seeks to become another sovereignty. As we know, that is the reason why the map of the world keeps changing. It is identity politics at work.

There are a thousand and one issues that can be discussed and explored about the Mindanao conflict. But I suggest that we should begin with confronting our own individual position on the core issue of the identity assertions of the Moros. The first question is, do you accept that the Moros are not Filipinos, even if they are inhabitants of the Republic of the Philippines? The second question is, if they are not Filipinos, are they entitled to their own homeland?

Obviously a negative answer means maintaining the status quo. In effect, it is taking the position of my mainland Chinese student: fight. And like my Ilocano friend, it means willingness to volunteer to defend the constitution, national sovereignty, and the country’s territorial boundaries. It means war.

I suggest that an affirmative answer, although fraught with many dangers, provides hope for genuine peace. Like my Zamboangueño friend, we must be willing to break our heads at the negotiating table to determine what is “theirs” and what is “mine.” We must be willing to reimagine a new Philippines. And we must be aware how difficult that is. For one, we have to ensure that the rights of the Lumad communities and settler communities in the affected areas are protected. Our Moro brothers must be made aware that if Moros do not want to be Filipinos, many Filipinos, including Lumads, do not want to be Moros too. Or to be precise, they do not want to acquire a Moro citizenship in a Bangsamoro Republic. If we respect each other’s rights, there will be peace in our land and hopefully all of us can attend to the urgent tasks of eradicating poverty and breaking underdevelopment in our respective homelands.

(Ang “Bisag Unsa” regular nga kolum ni Macario D. Tiu para sa MindaViews, ang seksyon sa opinion sa MindaNews. Si Mac usa ka Palanca awardee ug National Book awardee. Usa usab siya ka propesor sa Ateneo de Davao University. Puyde nimo ma-email si Mac sa mac_tiu@yahoo.com.ph.)

Source:
http://www.mindanews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6246&Itemid=93

Meltdown turns spotlight on Islamic finance

The failure of major investment and commercial banks that helped trigger the global recession has led some experts to look for other ways of doing banking.

Silencing 100,000 voices- The need for global and local solidarity with Mindanao

By Jeremy Simons/Mindanao Peacebuilders

My hands and arms are getting tired of being pulled, grasped, clasped and yanked. Is this what it feels like to be a celebrity? We’ve been driving since 6 am when we met at Freedom Park in Downtown Davao, the main city in the southern Island of Mindanao, Philippines. The plan for “Peace Power Day” (on March 18, 2009) was to travel a 500 km circular route through the 4-province Magindanaoan region of central Mindanao and then back to Davao. An ambitious goal for our “Peace Caravan” of 21 vehicles plastered with banners saying the likes of, “Save the Evacuees,” and, “Ceasefire Now!”

The purpose of our trip was to affirm a massive community organizing effort in Magindanao, one of the most conflict-affected area of Mindanao. Magindanao is where a majority of the 300,000 mostly Muslim, internally displaced people (IDP’s or “evacuees”) live in make-shift shelters. They remain in refugee camps or living with relatives, waiting to return home in the midst of a 40 year liberation struggle that flared into open warfare 8 months ago. This happened after a negotiated settlement, called the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (or MOA AD), fell apart at the last minute, forcing over half a million people out of their communities.

As an American community organizer, I wonder how it is possible to get tens of thousands of people to rally over a 4-province area of underdeveloped Mindanao Island. Yet, there is a way to organize a massive demonstration among some of the poorest people in the world, many of them refugees, dispersed over miles of dirt roads, mountainous terrain and one of the largest marshes in southeast Asia. First, is to have a few large, central rallies at major cities where people can be transported to or live locally. The rest of the demonstrators then “converge” on the national highway at smaller villages and intersections timed to coincide with the passing of the peace caravan. This is all coordinated through an extensive network of cellular text messages along the elaborate social and extended family networks of the Muslim community in Magindanao. The result - 100,000 Muslim community members, joined by Christian Filipinos, vocalizing their desire for peace.

I am riding the peace caravan with Datu Assib Ibrahim and Datu Kharis Matalam Baraguir, the direct descendant of Sultan Kudarat. Sultan Kudarat was a beloved leader in the early 1600s who fought off Christian Spanish invaders of the beautiful Magindanaoan region we’re traveling through. Though the Moro’s (Muslim) continue their struggle to reclaim just the portion of land they currently live on, Datus Assib and Datu Kharis tell me that they want to occupy the hearts of non-Moro’s first. The land that was taken away from them through years of oppression, exploitation and violence is, in some ways, incidental. Underneath the desire for a piece of earth is a desire for a home community of respect, “Bangsa-moro,” - a “Bangsa” (“Nation”) of Moro (“Muslim”). This is a place where the voice of the Moro is heard, and everyone’s voice is heard and valued in the heart. If this reality could be understood, that hearing precedes peace making, then we will have “occupied” each other’s hearts and would be able to find a way to a less violent future.

So, in the days following the peace caravan, I comb local and international news periodicals to see if peaceful rallies by 100,000 Muslims have found a way into the news, from which mainstream Filipinos might start to see the non-violent side of the Moro struggle. Though I don’t expect to find anything beyond a paragraph tucked away in the international news section, I assume Peace Power Day will be carried in the Philippine news. I am not too surprised that there is no mention of it in the international news, but I am stunned that none of the major news periodicals in the Philippines carry even a sentence about the tens of thousands of people rallying peacefully for change in a war-torn society. Since there is no repressive state news blackout hiding the emerging reality of a peaceful option in Mindanao, how can this be?

As we pass through rolling agricultural and forest land and the sun sets over Liguasan marsh, hundreds of children stream out of the blue tarp covered refugee shelters lining the road. They come to shake our hands and help us hear their desire for a place of safety and nurture. I want to explain that though I am one of only a dozen and a half foreigners in the peace caravan, I represent a much larger community of people who also believe in the creation of a listening space for justice, peace and reconciliation. While an international member in the solidarity caravan notes that the presence of so many Moro demonstrators reveals the sustainability of the violent struggle for self determination, another participant hears their voices representing the cry of Muslims everywhere. While I cannot determine who is right, (and they both may in fact be right), it seems only the violent voice is heard. And that is a reality that the supposedly dynamic peace constituency in Mindanao, myself included, has yet to effectively address.

Though most of my global constituency knows nothing about the details of the Bangsamoro struggle and suffering I see here, they also affirm the fundamental importance of listening as a sign of respect and a starting place for building peace. If they were here, they would also be extending their hand in solidarity. But since they are not, while my left arm is feeling sunburned from exposure to wind and hundreds of clasping greetings, I roll down the window as we approach another group of demonstrators convening along the road. I open my hand in blessing, “Asalaam Alaikum,” I say, which means, ‘Peace to you.’ “Alaikum Asalaam,” they respond, ‘peace to you in return.’

But is anyone else listening?

(Jeremy Simons was born and raised in the Philippines and has been living in Mindanao since 2008 as a restorative practices consultant and peace worker. He can be contacted at jeremy@peacebuilderscommunity.org, or to learn more about his work, go to www.peacebuilderscommunity.org).

Source: http://www.peacebuilderscommunity.org/stories/silencing100thousandvoices.htm

President Ahmadinejad's speech at the Durban Review Conference on racism

(Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has never run out of controversy. In the first day of the Durban Review Conference on April 20 [the conference runs through April 24, 2009] in Switzerland, his--yet another--controversial speech prompted the walk-out of the European delegates, not to mention the boycott of the conference itself by Australia, Canada, Germany, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, and the United States. The following is his speech.)

Mr. Chairman, honorable secretary general of the United Nations, honorable United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Ladies and gentleman:

We have gathered in the follow-up to the Durban conference against racism and racial discrimination to work out practical mechanisms for our holy and humanitarian campaigns.

Over the last centuries, humanity has gone through great sufferings and pains. In the Medieval Ages, thinkers and scientists were sentenced to death. It was then followed by a period of slavery and slave trade. Innocent people were taken captive in their millions and separated from their families and loved ones to be taken to Europe and America under the worst conditions. A dark period that also experienced occupation, lootings and massacres of innocent people.

Many years passed by before nations rose up and fought for their liberty and freedom and they paid a high price for it. They lost millions of lives to expel the occupiers and establish independent and national governments. However, it did not take long before power grabbers imposed two wars in Europe which also plagued a part of Asia and Africa. Those horrific wars claimed about a hundred million lives and left behind massive devastation. Had lessons been learnt from the occupations, horrors and crimes of those wars, there would have been a ray of hope for the future.

The victorious powers called themselves the conquerors of the world while ignoring or down treading upon rights of other nations by the imposition of oppressive laws and international arrangements.

Ladies and gentlemen, let us take a look at the UN Security Council which is one of the legacies of World War I and World War II. What was the logic behind their granting themselves the veto right? How can such logic comply with humanitarian or spiritual values? Would it not be inconformity with the recognized principles of justice, equality before the law, love and human dignity? Would it not be discrimination, injustice, violations of human rights or humiliation of the majority of nations and countries?

The council is the highest decision-making world body for safeguarding international peace and security. How can we expect the realization of justice and peace when discrimination is legalized and the origin of the law is dominated by coercion and force rather than by justice and the rights?

Coercion and arrogance is the origin of oppression and wars. Although today many proponents of racism condemn racial discrimination in their words and their slogans, a number of powerful countries have been authorized to decide for other nations based on their own interests and at their own discretion and they can easily violate all laws and humanitarian values as they have done so.

Following World War II, they resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering and they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in occupied Palestine. And, in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.

The Security Council helped stabilize the occupying regime and supported it in the past 60 years giving them a free hand to commit all sorts of atrocities. It is all the more regrettable that a number of Western governments and the United States have committed themselves to defending those racist perpetrators of genocide while the awakened-conscience and free-minded people of the world condemn aggression, brutalities and the bombardment of civilians in Gaza. The supporters of Israel have always been either supportive or silent against the crimes.

Dear friends, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen. What are the root causes of the US attacks against Iraq or the invasion of Afghanistan?

Was the motive behind the invasion of Iraq anything other than the arrogance of the then US administration and the mounting pressures on the part of the possessors of wealth and power to expand their sphere of influence seeking the interests of giant arms manufacturing companies affecting a noble culture with thousands of years of historical background, eliminating the potential and practical threats of Muslim countries against the Zionist regime or to control and plunder the energy resources of the Iraqi people?

Why, indeed, almost a million people were killed and injured and a few more millions were displaced? Why, indeed, the Iraqi people have suffered enormous losses amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars? And why was billions of dollars imposed on the American people as the result of these military actions? Was not the military action against Iraq planned by the Zionists and their allies in the then US administration in complicity with the arms manufacturing countries and the possessors of wealth? Did the invasion of Afghanistan restore peace, security and economic wellbeing in the country?

The United States and its allies not only have failed to contain the production of drugs in Afghanistan, but the cultivation of narcotics has multiplied in the course of their presence. The basic question is that what was the responsibility and the job of the then US administration and its allies?

Did they represent the countries of the world? Have they been mandated by them? Have they been authorized by the people of the world to interfere in all parts of the globe, of course mostly in our region? Are not these measures a clear example of egocentrism, racism, discrimination or infringement upon the dignity and independence of nations?

Ladies and gentlemen, who is responsible for the current global economic crisis? Where did the crisis start from? From Africa, Asia or from the United States in the first place then spreading across Europe and their allies?

For a long time, they imposed inequitable economic regulations by their political power on the international economy. They imposed a financial and monetary system without a proper international oversight mechanism on nations and governments that played no role in repressive trends or policies. They have not even allowed their people to oversea or monitor their financial policies. They introduced all laws and regulations in defiance of all moral values only to protect the interests of the possessors of wealth and power.

They further presented a definition for market economy and competition that denied many of the economic opportunities that could be available to other countries of the world. They even transferred their problems to others while the waves of crisis lashed back plaguing their economies with thousands of billions of dollars in budget deficit. And today, they are injecting hundreds of billions of dollars of cash from the pockets of their own people and other nations into the failing banks, companies and financial institutions making the situation more and more complicated for their economy and their people. They are simply thinking about maintaining power and wealth. They could not care any less about the people of the world and even their own people.

Mr. President, Ladies and gentlemen, Racism is rooted in the lack of knowledge concerning the root of human existence as the selected creature of God. It is also the product of his deviation from the true path of human life and the obligations of mankind in the world of creation, failing to consciously worship God, not being able to think about the philosophy of life or the path to perfection that are the main ingredients of divine and humanitarian values which have restricted the horizon of human outlook making transient and limited interests, the yardstick for his action. That is why evil's power took shape and expanded its realm of power while depriving others from enjoying equitable and just opportunities of development.

The result has been the making of an unbridled racism that is posing the most serious threats against international peace and has hindered the way for building peaceful coexistence in the entire world. Undoubtedly, racism is the symbol of ignorance which has deep roots in history and it is, indeed, the sign of frustration in the development of human society.

It is, therefore, crucially important to trace the manifestations of racism in situations or in societies where ignorance or lack of knowledge prevails. This increasing general awareness and understanding towards the philosophy of human existence is the principle struggle against such manifestations, and reveals the truth that human kind centers on the creation of the universe and the key to solving the problem of racism is a return to spiritual and moral values and finally the inclination to worship God Almighty.

The international community must initiate collective moves to raise awareness in afflicted societies where ignorance of racism still prevails so as to bring to a halt the spread of these malicious manifestations.

Dear Friends, today, the human community is facing a kind of racism which has tarnished the image of humanity in the beginning of the third millennium.

World Zionism personifies racism that falsely resorts to religions and abuses religious sentiments to hide its hatred and ugly face. However, it is of great importance to bring into focus the political goals of some of the world powers and those who control huge economic resources and interests in the world. They mobilize all the resources including their economic and political influence and world media to render support in vain to the Zionist regime and to maliciously diminish the indignity and disgrace of this regime.

This is not simply a question of ignorance and one cannot conclude these ugly phenomena through consular campaigns. Efforts must be made to put an end to the abuse by Zionists and their political and international supporters and in respect with the will and aspirations of nations. Governments must be encouraged and supported in their fights aimed at eradicating this barbaric racism and to move towards reform in current international mechanisms.

There is no doubt that you are all aware of the conspiracies of some powers and Zionist circles against the goals and objectives of this conference. Unfortunately, there have been literatures and statements in support of Zionists and their crimes. And it is the responsibility of honorable representatives of nations to disclose these campaigns which run counter to humanitarian values and principles.

It should be recognized that boycotting such a session as an outstanding international capacity is a true indication of supporting the blatant example of racism. In defending human rights, it is primarily important to defend the rights of all nations to participate equally in all important international decision making processes without the influence of certain world powers.

And secondly, it is necessary to restructure the existing international organizations and their respective arrangements. Therefore this conference is a testing ground and the world public opinion today and tomorrow will judge our decisions and our actions.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, the world is going through rapid fundamental changes. Power relations have become weak and fragile. The sound of cracks in the pillars of world systems can now be heard. Major political and economic structures are on the brink of collapse. Political and security crises are on the rise. The worsening crisis in the world economy for which there can be seen no bright prospect, demonstrates the rising tide of far-reaching global changes. I have repeatedly emphasized the need to change the wrong direction through which the world is being managed today and I have also warned of the dire consequences of any delay in this crucial responsibility.

Now in this valuable event, I would like to announce to all leaders, thinkers and to all nations of the world present in this meeting and those who have a hunger for peace and economic well-being that the unjust economic management of the world is now at the end of the road. This deadlock was inevitable since the logic of this imposed management was oppressive.

The logic of collective management of world affairs is based on noble aspirations which centers on human beings and the supremacy of the almighty God. Therefore it defies any policy or plan which goes against the influence of nations. The victory of right over wrong and the establishment of a just world system has been promised by the Almighty God and his messengers and it has been a shared goal of all human beings from different societies and generations in the course of history. Realization of such a future depends on the knowledge of creation and the belief of the faithful.

The making of a global society is in fact the accomplishment of a noble goal held in the establishment of a common global system that will be run with the participation of all nations of the world in all major decision making processes and the definite root to this sublime goal.

Scientific and technical capacities as well as communication technology have created a common and widespread understanding of the world society and has provided the necessary ground for a common system. Now it is upon all intellectuals, thinkers and policy makers in the world to carry out their historical responsibility with a firm belief in this definite root.

I also want to lay emphasis on the fact that Western liberalism and capitalism has reached its end since it has failed to perceive the truth of the world and humans as they are.

It has imposed its own goals and directions on human beings. There is no regard for human and divine values, justice, freedom, love and brotherhood and it has based living on intense competition, securing individual and cooperative material interest.

Now we must learn from the past by initiating collective efforts in dealing with present challenges and in this connection, and as a closing remark, I wish to draw your kind attention to two important issues:

Firstly, it is absolutely possible to improve the existing situation in the world. However it must be noted that this could be only achieved through the cooperation of all countries in order to get the best out of the existing capacities and resources in the world. My participation in this conference is because of my conviction to these important issues as well as to our common responsibility of defending the rights of nations vis-à-vis the sinister phenomena of racism and being with you, the thinkers of the world.

Secondly, mindful of the inefficiency of the current international political, economic and security systems, it is necessary to focus on divine and humanitarian values by referring to the true definition of human beings based upon justice and respect for the rights of all people in all parts of the world and by acknowledging the past wrong doings in the past dominant management of the world, and to undertake collective measures to reform the existing structures.

In this respect, it is crucially important to rapidly reform the structure of the Security Council, including the elimination of the discriminatory veto right and to change the current world financial and monetary systems.

It is evident that lack of understanding of the urgency for change is equivalent to the much heavier costs of delay.

Dear Friends, beware that to move in the direction of justice and human dignity is like a rapid flow in the current of a river. Let us not forget the essence of love and affection. The promised future of human beings is a great asset that may serve our purposes in keeping together to build a new world.

In order to make the world a better place full of love and blessings, a world devoid of poverty and hatred, merging the increasing blessings of God Almighty and the righteous managing of the perfect human being, let us all join hands in friendship in the fulfillment of such a new world.

I thank you Mr. President, Secretary General and all distinguished participants for having the patience to listen to me. Thank you very much.

The late MILF chair Salamat Hashim's letter to former US President Bush

20 January 2003

Your Excellency:

In the name of Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), we send our profound and felicitous greetings of peace on behalf of the Bangsamoro People of our historic homeland in Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan.

The Bangsamoro People have always looked upon your country, the United States of America, and its people, with esteem as a great champion of freedom and democracy. The founding fathers of the American Nation as firm believers of “self-evident truths” and “inalienable rights” have become inspirations for the Moro Nation in our quest for the right to self-determination.

Your ambassador to the Philippines, His Excellency Francis J. Ricciardone, who recently addressed the Foreign Correspondents Association of the Philippines, raised the question of the US Government’s desire to know “what they (MILF) want or how it’s (the Problem) going to be resolved.”

We take this opportunity to inform Your Excellency that the MILF is a national liberation organization, with leadership supported by the Bangsamoro People, and with legitimate political goal to pursue the right of the Moro Nation to determine their future and political status. As part of this process, we have an on-going negotiation with the Government of the Republic of the Philippines to arrive at a negotiated political settlement of the Mindanao conflict and the Bangsamoro problem, through the mediation and tender of good offices of the Government of Malaysia.

Your desire to be informed of the MILF goals reminds us of the historic, legal and political relationship between the Moro Nation and the US Federal Government as borne out by documents, treaty relations and instruments. Your official policy, under William McKinley’s Instruction to the First Philippine Commission of 1900, treated the Moro Nation initially as a Dependent Nation similar to North American Indian Nations under treaty relations with the US Federal Government. Subsequently, the Moro Nation was accorded the political status of a US protectorate under the Kiram-Bates Treaty of 1899, confirming the Treaty of 1878 between Sultan of Sulu and Spain.

Your policy to consider the Philippine archipelago as an unincorporated territory of the United States paved the way for the US Government to administer affairs in the Moro territories under a separate political form of governance under the Moro Province from the rest of the Philippine Islands.

Your project to grant Philippine independence obliged the leaders of the Moro Nation to petition the US Congress to give us an option through a referendum either by remaining as a territory to be administered by the US Government or granted separate independence 50 years from the grant of Philippine independence. Were it not for the outbreak of the Pacific War, the Moro Nation would have been granted trust territory status like any of the Pacific islands states who are now independent or in free association with the United States of America.

On account of such circumstances, the Moro Nation was deprived of their inalienable right to self-determination, without waiving their plebiscitary consent. Prior to the grant of Philippine independence on July 4, 1946, American Congressional leaders foresaw that the inclusion of the Moro Nation within the Philippine Commonwealth would result in serious conflicts in Mindanao, Sulu and Palawan, arising from the inability of the Filipino leaders to govern the Moro people. This condition or states of affairs have continued to prevail to the present day.

In view of the current global developments and regional security concerns in Southeast Asia, it is our desire to accelerate the just and peaceful negotiated political settlement of the Mindanao conflict, particularly the present colonial situation in which the Bangsamoro people find themselves.

We are therefore appealing to the basic principle of American fairness and sense of justice to use your good offices in rectifying the error that continuous to negate and derogate the Bangsamoro People’s fundamental right to seek decolonization under the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960. For this purpose, we are amenable to inviting and giving you the opportunity to assist in resolving this predicament of the Bangsamoro People.

With assurances of our highest esteem and cordial regards.

Very truly yours,

SALAMAT HASHIM
Chairman

US Guantanamo guard converts to Islam

As the US government moves to shutdown its detention centre at Guantanamo Bay, stories are emerging of the way it affected those inside.

Former inmates have talked about the deprivation and pressures they faced.

But Terry Holdbrooks was on the other side. He was a US soldier and he says he saw something in the behaviour of the inmates that changed him. He tells his story.

Speech of Nur Misuari during the 3rd Session of the OIC-GRP-MNLF Tripartite Meeting on March 11-13, 2009

Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim


Excellency Ambassador Rezlan Jenie, the presiding officer of this 3rd Session of the OIC-GRP-MNLF Tripartite Meeting, His Excellency Dr. Adel Merdad, vice chairman of this peace talks and Head of the delegation from the Royal Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, His Excellency Ambassador Sayyid Kassim Al-Masry, the Special Envoy of the OIC for Southern Philippines for Peace, His Excellency Ambassador Mohammedou Al-Doudou of Senegal, His Excellency Ambassador Talal Al-Daus, Director of Muslim Minorities & Communities of the OIC, distinguished representatives of the Ministerial Committee of the Twelve, the distinguished delegation from the Government of the Republic of the Philippines, my brothers and sisters in the MNLF delegation, brothers and sisters who are present here to witness this proceeding, Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi taala wa barakatuhu.

When I came to this session, I came with a very heavy heart, aware as I am of what happened in the past. We have been hearing platitude after platitude about peace, but the sad experiences of our people are these: Every time we agreed on a peace agreement, all what we achieved were temporary peace, but finally we ended up in a bloodshed.

Second experience of our people: Every time we have peace talks like this, and we failed to achieve anything across the table, willy-nilly, there will be outbreak of war.

I came here to appeal to all of you to search your conscience and to make a resolution to break the cycle of terror and war in our Homeland. Since the time of Marcos, I was always at the head of my delegation. But sad to note despite the concessions we made, concession after concession, all what we got was tragedy, suffering and misery imposed on our people.

I negotiated and signed the Tripoli Agreement on the 23rd of December 1976, and we intended to declare ceasefire on the 20th of January 1977; a follow up peace talks occurred in August. But since we did not reach any agreement at all, what happened was -- there was an outbreak of war. Remember the Tabuh Danag Incident on October 10, 1977! The whole leadership of the Tabak Division, the most equipped and the most powerful Division of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, were wiped out in a matter of minutes in the hands of the Moro National Liberation Front.

I was delivering my address at the Palaise de Nacion in Algiers when this incident occurred. I asked my brothers who have knowledge about this incident. I said what happened? Well, they told me, Marcos made an indiscretion to declare before the media ordering his commanders in the field to go out and search for MNLF leaders and members, and to talk to them---with or without Nur Misuari.

That stoked the war. We have just signed a peace agreement and declared the ceasefire but Marcos was so arbitrary. What happened later on, we decided to ask jurists from all over the world. Because so many lives, tens of thousands of lives, were wasted in this war despite the fact that we have already entered into peace agreement, still they decided to impose war on us.

What happened?

In Belgium, Marcos was tried by Tribunal and he was pronounced as having committed a heinous crime against humanity. Jurists from many parts of the globe went to Belgium at our invitation.

That was the first.

And then came Corazon Aquino. If we are only keen enough to understand, it was my decision in Madrid that put her to power. You ask Butz Aquino, you ask Norberto Gonzales, you ask their companions what happened in Madrid in the First week of January 1986, barely a month before the snap elections in the 7th of February the same year. They were pleading with me for help.

I asked why? There’s going to be election. Cory is running. And she was facing heavy odds. Because according to the findings of all their campaign managers, Marcos was going to win a landslide victory. I said can you tell me why. Butz Aquino said that in Luzon and in Visayas the outcome will be almost even, but when the outcome of the snap election would come from Mindanao, it would be landslide victory for Marcos.

Corazon Aquino, before sending her brother-in-law to Madrid to see me there, had already made intimation to withdraw from the race but somebody told her: “Madame, don’t make too fast a decision, let’s wait for Nur Misuari. He can help us turn the tide against Marcos in Mindanao.”

That’s exactly what they did. They asked for my help and finally we decided. We helped her on condition that Corazon Aquino, once she would come to power, must comply with all the promises and commitments of her late husband. Ninoy Aquino had visited me in Damascus and Saudi Arabia, and promised: “Brother Nur, if we come to power, if the opposition would come to power, surely we will recognize and support the Bangsamoro people’s right to self-determination and independence.” This was published all over the world.

What happened after we supported her? There was a big problem. Marcos went to the University of the Philippines Law College and harangued the Lady. Marcos charged her of having committed heinous crime along with her brother-in-law for entering into agreement with Nur Misuari in Madrid to topple his government. But what was the reply of the Lady. After she had kept herself in Cebu to avoid arrest, she returned back to Manila and made statement in the media, “If I win in this coming snap elections, the first thing I’ll do is to meet Nur Misuari in any part of the world, to extend my gratitude to him and his people.”

Exactly that’s what happened. On the 5th of September 1986, she flew, against the advice of the generals, to Jolo. We had a Summit Meeting with her and we launched the negotiations for peace. But what happened after we signed the Jeddah Accord in 1987, we came again to it. Why? I must tell you according to my information the Lady had entrusted the solution of the problem to the hands of the late Cardinal Sin.

Nothing happened after that despite the assistance we gave her to put her to power.

Then came Ramos. Our people were against him, and Ramos knows this. Because Ramos was known among us as the chief architect of the war in Mindanao. So once he becomes president, he would start making preparation for war, offensive war of course. But what happened instead Ramos sent his delegation to Tripoli, Libya headed by the present Executive Secretary Ermita; sought my cooperation and so we had a 3-day meeting and we signed an agreement to launch the peace talks.

It took us, Excellencies, four solid years starting in October 1992 until we signed in Manila the agreement called the 1996 Final Peace Agreement. Four solid years it took us just to complete the talks.

What happened after that?

After we signed agreement with Marcos, after we signed agreement with Aquino, after we signed agreement with Ramos, what came about were but a short period of peace. And then the flame of war overtook us. Hundreds of thousands of lives had been wasted in the process. That’s for the sake of autonomy!

Originally we were demanding for independence. We declared in our Manifesto that there would be no any talks with the Philippine government. But the OIC filed that fateful Resolution in Kuala Lumpur in July 1974 during the 5th Islamic Conference of Foreign Ministers there, calling for the resolution of the problem on the basis of autonomy.

What happened?

Now, as His Excellency was saying earlier, it’s 33 years gone since we signed the 1976 Peace Agreement, and so many years after that. We are again in the same predicament. We are in the crossroad. I mentioned all these antecedents just to awaken the conscience of our brothers because, to me, maybe this is the last chance.

This is our last chance. If we will not succeed in this peace talks, if we will not be able to produce anything positive, then it will leave us with no other choice but to take a departure from this Formula. And probably we will return back to our original intention of seeking independence for our people. This is the message I wanted to convey to you for your guidance so that you will not misunderstand us.

Now I ask you, dear brothers and sisters, please let us break this cycle of war. Let us break the cycle of tragedy and misery. The Philippine government has no right to impose this war on us and on our innocent people. You resort to all kinds of weapons of war to destroy us.

I am appealing to you, please let us work together. Let us produce good results here. And let us once again break this cycle of tragedy, of misery in our Homeland. Otherwise the MNLF will be left with no choice but to seek other means of resolving the problem.

Wa Billahi tawfiq wal hidayah … Assalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi taala wa barakatuhu.


*** Transcribed by Professor Salic Amerodin

MNLF General Secretariat

European Parliament resolution of 12 March 2009 on the Philippines

The European Parliament ,

– having regard to the Declaration of 15 September 2008 by the Presidency on behalf of the EU on the situation in Mindanao,

– having regard to the appeal issued by the Ambassadors of the European Union and the United States of America and the Australian Embassy's deputy head of mission on 29 January 2009,

– having regard to the third session of the Tripartite Review of the implementation of the 1996 Peace Agreement between the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and the Government of the Republic of the Philippines (GRP) from 11 to 13 March 2009,

– having regard to the Hague Joint Declaration by the GRP and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP) of 1 September 1992 and the First and Second Oslo Joint Statements of 14 February and of 3 April 2004,

– having regard to the Commission's Country Strategy Paper 2007-2013 for the Philippines, the programme of support to the Peace Process under the Stability Instrument and the negotiations for a Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the EU and the Philippines,

– having regard to its previous resolutions on the Philippines, notably that of 26 April 2007(1) , and reaffirming its support for the peace negotiations between the GRP and NDFP as expressed in its resolutions of 17 July 1997(2) and 14 January 1999(3) ,

– having regard to Rule 115(5) of its Rules of Procedure,

A. whereas several armed groups, notably the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), have been combating government troops in the southern part of the Philippines since 1969, in one of Asia's longest-running insurgencies,

B. whereas the conflict between the GRP and the insurgents of the NDFP has claimed more than 40 000 lives and sporadic violence has continued despite the 2003 ceasefire and peace talks,

C. whereas hostilities between government forces and the MILF in Mindanao resumed in August 2008 after the Supreme Court of the Philippines declared unconstitutional the Memorandum of Agreement between the MILF and the GRP on the Ancestral Domain, which would have given substantial autonomy to the Bangsamoro nation,

D. whereas the renewed fighting has killed over one hundred and displaced approximately 300 000 people, many of whom are still in evacuation centres,

E. whereas Malaysia, the peace facilitator, withdrew its ceasefire monitors from Mindanao in April 2008 due to the lack of progress in the peace process, but is willing to reconsider its role if the GRP clarifies its negotiating position,

F. whereas peace talks between the GRP and the NDFP have stalled since 2004 and whereas the Norwegian Government has made great efforts to encourage both sides to resume formal talks,

G. whereas hundreds of activists, trade unionists, journalists and religious leaders in the Philippines have been killed or abducted since 2001 and the GRP denies any involvement of the security forces and the army in these political killings, despite ample evidence to the contrary,

H. whereas there were several cases in 2008 in which local courts found the arrest and detention of activists to be unlawful and ordered their release, but where those same people were subsequently rearrested and charged with rebellion or murder,

I. whereas the judiciary in the Philippines is not independent, while lawyers and judges are also subject to harassment and killings; whereas witness vulnerability makes it impossible to effectively investigate criminal offences and prosecute those responsible for them,

J. whereas, in the case of most of these extrajudicial killings, no formal criminal investigation has been opened and the perpetrators remain unpunished despite many government claims that it has adopted measures to stop the killings and bring their perpetrators to justice,

K. whereas in April 2008 the UN Human Rights Council examined the situation in the Philippines and stressed the impunity of those responsible for extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances, but the GRP rejected recommendations for a follow-up report,

L. whereas in order to put an end to abductions and extrajudicial killings it is necessary to address the economic, social and cultural root causes of violence in the Philippines,

1. Expresses its grave concern about the hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people in Mindanao, calls on the GRP and the MILF to do all in their power to bring about a situation which allows people to return home, and calls for enhanced national and international action to protect and to work towards the rehabilitation of the displaced persons;

2. Believes strongly that the conflict can only be resolved through dialogue, and that the resolution of this long-standing insurgency is essential for the sake of the overall development of the Philippines;

3. Calls on the GRP to urgently resume peace negotiations with the MILF and to clarify the status and future of the Memorandum of Agreement after the above-mentioned Supreme Court ruling; welcomes the GRP's announcement that it intends to drop preconditions for the resumption of talks;

4. Welcomes the talks, facilitated by Norway, between the GRP and the NDFP in Oslo in November 2008 and hopes, in this case also, that formal negotiations can rapidly resume; calls on the parties to comply with their bilateral agreements for the JMC, to meet in accordance with the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) and to allow joint investigations of human rights violations;

5. Calls on the Council and the Commission to provide and facilitate support and assistance to the parties in implementing the CARHRIHL, notably through development, relief and rehabilitation programmes;

6. Calls on the European Council and the Commission to support the GRP in its efforts to advance the peace negotiations, including by means of facilitation if requested, as well as through support for the International Monitoring Team responsible for overseeing the ceasefire between the military and the MILF;

7. Suggests that the role of the International Monitoring Team could be enhanced through a stronger mandate for investigations and through an agreed policy of making its findings public;

8. Calls on the GRP to increase development aid to Mindanao in order to improve the desperate living conditions of the local population and welcomes the financial support of more than EUR 13 million in food and non-food aid which the EU has given to Mindanao since fighting restarted in August 2008;

9. Expresses its grave concern at the hundreds of cases of extrajudicial killings of political activists and journalists that have occurred in recent years in the Philippines, and the role that the security forces have played in orchestrating and perpetrating those murders;

10. Calls on the GRP to investigate cases of extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances; calls at the same time on the GRP to put into place an independent monitoring mechanism to oversee the investigation and prosecution of perpetrators of such acts;

11. Calls on the GRP to adopt measures to end the systematic intimidation and harassment of political and human rights activists, members of civil society, journalists and witnesses in criminal prosecutions, and to ensure truly effective witness protection;

12. Reiterates its request to the Philippine authorities to allow the UN special bodies dealing with human rights protection unrestricted access to the country; urges, also, the authorities to swiftly adopt and implement laws to incorporate the international human rights instruments (e.g. against torture and enforced disappearances) which have been ratified into national law;

13. Calls on the Council and the Commission to ensure that the EU's financial assistance towards economic development in the Philippines is accompanied by scrutiny of possible violations of economic, social and cultural rights, with special attention being paid to encouraging dialogue and inclusion of all groups in society;

14. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the President and Government of the Republic of the Philippines, the MILF, the NDFP, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the governments of the ASEAN Member States.

(1)	OJ C 74 E, 20.3.2008, p. 788.
(2)	OJ C 286, 22.9.1997, p. 245.
(3)	OJ C 104, 14.4.1999, p. 116. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-2009-0144+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN

American President Barack Obama’s Address to the Turkish Parliament

April 6, 2009
Grand National Assembly of Turkey (Turkish: Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi - TBMM, usually referred to simply as Meclis - "the Parliament")


Mr. Speaker, Madam Deputy Speaker, distinguished members,

I am honored to speak in this chamber, and I am committed to renewing the alliance between our nations and the friendship between our people.

This is my first trip overseas as President of the United States. I have been to the G-20 Summit in London, the NATO Summit in Strasbourg and Kehl, and the European Union Summit in Prague. Some people have asked me if I chose to continue my travels to Ankara and Istanbul to send a message. My answer is simple: Evet. Turkey is a critical ally. Turkey is an important part of Europe. And Turkey and the United States must stand together - and work together - to overcome the challenges of our time.

This morning I had the privilege of visiting the tomb of the great founder of your Republic. I was deeply impressed by this beautiful memorial to a man who did so much to shape the course of history. But it is also clear that the greatest monument to Ataturk's life is not something that can be cast in stone and marble. His greatest legacy is Turkey's strong and secular democracy, and that is the work that this assembly carries on today.

This future was not easily assured. At the end of World War I, Turkey could have succumbed to the foreign powers that were trying to claim its territory, or sought to restore an ancient empire. But Turkey chose a different future. You freed yourself from foreign control. And you founded a Republic that commands the respect of the United States and the wider world.

There is a simple truth to this story: Turkey's democracy is your own achievement. It was not forced upon you by any outside power, nor did it come without struggle and sacrifice. Like any democracy, Turkey draws strength from both the successes of the past, and from the efforts of each generation of Turks that makes new progress for your people.

My country's democracy has its own story. The general who led America in revolution and governed as our first President was George Washington.

Like you, we built a grand monument to honor our founding father - a towering obelisk that stands in the heart of the capital city that bears Washington's name.

It took decades to build. There were frequent delays. Over time, more and more people contributed to help make this monument the inspiring structure that still stands tall today. Among those who came to our aid were friends from all across the world, who offered their own tributes to Washington and the country he helped to found.

One of those tributes came from Istanbul. Ottoman Sultan Abdulmecid sent a marble plaque that helped to build the Washington Monument. Inscribed in the plaque was a poem that began with a few simple words, and I quote: "So as to strengthen the friendship between the two countries."

Over 150 years have passed since those words were carved into marble.

Our nations have changed in many ways. But our friendship is strong, and our alliance endures.

It is a friendship that flourished in the years after World War II, when President Truman committed our nation to the defense of Turkey's freedom and sovereignty, and Turkey committed itself to the NATO alliance.

Turkish troops have served by our side from Korea to Kosovo to Kabul.

Together, we withstood the great test of the Cold War. Trade between our nations has steadily advanced. So has cooperation in science and research.

The ties among our people have deepened as well, and more and more Americans of Turkish origin live and work and succeed within our borders. As a basketball fan, I've even noticed that Hedo Turkoglu and Mehmet Okur have got some pretty good game.

The United States and Turkey have not always agreed on every issue. That is to be expected - no two nations do. But we have stood together through many challenges over the last sixty years. And because of the strength of our alliance and the endurance of our friendship, both America and Turkey are stronger, and the world is more secure.

Now, our two democracies are confronted by an unprecedented set of challenges. An economic crisis that recognizes no borders. Extremism that leads to the killing of innocent men, women and children. Strains on our energy supply and a changing climate. The proliferation of the world's deadliest weapons, and the persistence of tragic conflict.

These are the great tests of our young century. And the choices that we make in the coming years will determine whether the future will be shaped by fear or by freedom; by poverty or by prosperity; by strife or by a just, secure and lasting peace.

This much is certain: no one nation can confront these challenges alone, and all nations have a stake in overcoming them. That is why we must listen to one another, and seek common ground. That is why we must build on our mutual interests, and rise above our differences. We are stronger when we act together. That is the message that I have carried with me throughout this trip to Europe. That will be the approach of the United States of America going forward.

Already, America and Turkey are working with the G-20 on an unprecedented response to an unprecedented economic crisis. This past week, we came together to ensure that the world's largest economies take strong and coordinated action to stimulate growth and restore the flow of credit; to reject the pressure of protectionism, and to extend a hand to developing countries and the people hit hardest by this downturn; and to dramatically reform our regulatory system so that the world never faces a crisis like this again.

As we go forward, the United States and Turkey can pursue many opportunities to serve prosperity for our people, particularly when it comes to energy. To expand markets and create jobs, we can increase trade and investment between our countries. To develop new sources of energy and combat climate change, we should build on our Clean Technology Fund to leverage efficiency and renewable energy investments in Turkey. And to power markets in Turkey and Europe, the United States will continue to support your central role as an East-West corridor for oil and natural gas.

This economic cooperation only reinforces the common security that Europe and the United States share with Turkey as a NATO ally, and the common values that we share as democracies. So in meeting the challenges of the 21st century, we must seek the strength of a Europe that is truly united, peaceful and free.

Let me be clear: the United States strongly supports Turkey's bid to become a member of the European Union. We speak not as members of the EU, but as close friends of Turkey and Europe. Turkey has been a resolute ally and a responsible partner in transatlantic and European institutions. And Turkey is bound to Europe by more than bridges over the Bosphorous. Centuries of shared history, culture, and commerce bring you together. Europe gains by diversity of ethnicity, tradition and faith - it is not diminished by it. And Turkish membership would broaden and strengthen Europe's foundation once more.

Turkey has its own responsibilities. You have made important progress toward membership. But I also know that Turkey has pursued difficult political reforms not simply because it's good for Europe, but because it is right for Turkey.

In the last several years, you have abolished state-security courts and expanded the right to counsel. You have reformed the penal code, and strengthened laws that govern the freedom of the press and assembly. You lifted bans on teaching and broadcasting Kurdish, and the world noted with respect the important signal sent through a new state Kurdish television station.

These achievements have created new laws that must be implemented, and a momentum that should be sustained. For democracies cannot be static - they must move forward. Freedom of religion and expression lead to a strong and vibrant civil society that only strengthens the state, which is why steps like reopening the Halki Seminary will send such an important signal inside Turkey and beyond. An enduring commitment to the rule of law is the only way to achieve the security that comes from justice for all people. Robust minority rights let societies benefit from the full measure of contributions from all citizens.

I say this as the President of a country that not too long ago made it hard for someone who looks like me to vote. But it is precisely that capacity to change that enriches our countries. Every challenge that we face is more easily met if we tend to our own democratic foundation.

This work is never over. That is why, in the United States, we recently ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed, and prohibited - without exception or equivocation - any use of torture.

Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods. Facing the Washington monument that I spoke of is a memorial to Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our Revolution. And our country still struggles with the legacy of our past treatment of Native Americans.

Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History, unresolved, can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there are strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. While there has been a good deal of commentary about my views, this is really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive.

We have already seen historic and courageous steps taken by Turkish and Armenian leaders. These contacts hold out the promise of a new day. An open border would return the Turkish and Armenian people to a peaceful and prosperous coexistence that would serve both of your nations. That is why the United States strongly supports the full normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia.

It speaks to Turkey's leadership that you are poised to be the only country in the region to have normal and peaceful relations with all the South Caucusus nations. And to advance that peace, you can play a constructive role in helping to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which has continued for far too long.

Advancing peace also includes the dispute that persists in the eastern Mediterranean. Here, there is cause for hope. The two Cypriot leaders have an opportunity through their commitment to negotiations under the United Nations Good Offices Mission. The United States is willing to offer all the help sought by the parties as they work toward a just and lasting settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bizonal and bicommunal federation.

These efforts speak to one part of the critical region that surrounds Turkey. And when we consider the challenges before us, on issue after issue, we share common goals.

In the Middle East, we share the goal of a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. Let me be clear: the United States strongly supports the goal of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. That is a goal shared by Palestinians, Israelis, and people of good will around the world. That is a goal that that the parties agreed to in the Roadmap and at Annapolis. And that is a goal that I will actively pursue as President.

We know that the road ahead will be difficult. Both Israelis and Palestinians must take the steps that are necessary to build confidence.

Both must live up to the commitments they have made. Both must overcome longstanding passions and the politics of the moment to make progress toward a secure and lasting peace.

The United States and Turkey can help the Palestinians and Israelis make this journey. Like the United States, Turkey has been a friend and partner in Israel's quest for security. And like the United States, you seek a future of opportunity and statehood for the Palestinians. Now, we must not give into pessimism and mistrust. We must pursue every opportunity for progress, as you have done by supporting negotiations between Syria and Israel. We must extend a hand to those Palestinians who are in need, while helping them strengthen institutions. And we must reject the use of terror, and recognize that Israel's security concerns are legitimate.

The peace of the region will also be advanced if Iran forgoes any nuclear weapons ambitions. As I made clear yesterday in Prague, no one is served by the spread of nuclear weapons. This part of the world has known enough violence. It has known enough hatred. It does not need a race for ever-more powerful tools of destruction.

I have made it clear to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic that the United States seeks engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. We want Iran to play its rightful role in the community of nations, with the economic and political integration that brings prosperity and security. Now, Iran's leaders must choose whether they will try to build a weapon or build a better future for their people.

Both Turkey and the United States support a secure and united Iraq that does not serve as a safe-haven for terrorists. I know there were differences about whether to go to war. There were differences within my own country as well. But now we must come together as we end this war responsibly, because the future of Iraq is inseparable from the future of the broader region. The United States will remove our combat brigades by the end of next August, while working with the Iraqi government as they take responsibility for security. And we will work with Iraq, Turkey, and all of Iraq's neighbors, to forge a new dialogue that reconciles differences and advances our common security.

Make no mistake, though: Iraq, Turkey, and the United States face a common threat from terrorism. That includes the al Qaeda terrorists who have sought to drive Iraqis apart and to destroy their country. And that includes the PKK. There is no excuse for terror against any nation. As President, and as a NATO ally, I pledge that you will have our support against the terrorist activities of the PKK. These efforts will be strengthened by the continued work to build ties of cooperation between Turkey, the Iraqi government, and Iraq's Kurdish leaders, and by your continued efforts to promote education and opportunity for Turkey's Kurds.

Finally, we share the common goal of denying al Qaeda a safe-haven in Pakistan or Afghanistan. The world has come too far to let this region backslide, and to let al Qaeda terrorists plot further attacks. That is why we are committed to a more focused effort to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda. That is why we are increasing our efforts to train Afghans to sustain their own security, and to reconcile former adversaries. And that is why we are increasing our support for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan, so that we stand on the side of their security, their opportunity, and the promise of a better life.

Turkey has been a true partner. Your troops were among the first in the International Security Assistance Force. You have sacrificed much in this endeavor. Now, we must achieve our goals together. I appreciate that you have offered to help us train and support Afghan Security Forces, and expand opportunity across the region. Together, we can rise to meet this challenge like we have so many before.

I know there have been difficulties these last few years. I know that the trust that binds us has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced. Let me say this as clearly as I can: the United States is not at war with Islam. In fact, our partnership with the Muslim world is critical in rolling back a fringe ideology that people of all faiths reject.

But I also want to be clear that America's relationship with the Muslim work cannot and will not be based on opposition to al Qaeda. Far from it. We seek broad engagement based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. We will listen carefully, bridge misunderstanding, and seek common ground. We will be respectful, even when we do not agree. And we will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over so many centuries to shape the world for the better - including my own country. The United States has been enriched by Muslim Americans. Many other Americans have Muslims in their family, or have lived in a Muslim-majority country - I know, because I am one of them.

Above all, we will demonstrate through actions our commitment to a better future. We want to help more children get the education that they need to succeed. We want to promote health care in places where people are vulnerable. We want to expand the trade and investment that can bring prosperity for all people. In the months ahead, I will present specific programs to advance these goals. Our focus will be on what we can do, in partnership with people across the Muslim world, to advance our common hopes, and our common dreams. And when people look back on this time, let it be said of America that we extended the hand of friendship.

There is an old Turkish proverb: "You cannot put out fire with flames."

America knows this. Turkey knows this. There are some who must be met with force. But force alone cannot solve our problems, and it is no alternative to extremism. The future must belong to those who create, not those who destroy. That is the future we must work for, and we must work for it together.

I know there are those who like to debate Turkey's future. They see your country at the crossroads of continents, and touched by the currents of history. They know that this has been a place where civilizations meet, and different peoples mingle. And they wonder whether you will be pulled in one direction or another.

Here is what they don't understand: Turkey's greatness lies in your ability to be at the center of things. This is not where East and West divide - it is where they come together. In the beauty of your culture.

In the richness of your history. In the strength of your democracy. In your hopes for tomorrow.

I am honored to stand here with you - to look forward to the future that we must reach for together - and to reaffirm America's commitment to our strong and enduring friendship. Thank you.