12.16.2009
By Adriel M. Paglinawan
Business World
THE GOVERNMENT and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) peace panels will hold the second round of talks in January, officials from both sides said early this week.
In last week’s initial round of talks more than a year after negotiations bogged down, both panels agreed in Kuala Lumpur -- Malaysia being the third-party negotiator -- to revive the International Monitoring Team which oversees the 1997 ceasefire pact, and the Ad Hoc Action Group, a body that would address organized crime within or near identified MILF areas.
"Next round of talks is tentatively set in January," MILF chief negotiator Mohagher Iqbal said in a phone interview.
The talks will focus on the comprehensive peace pact, he said, adding they are hoping to agree on a peace deal before President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo steps down in June 2010.
"The most difficult aspect of the talk is finding a just and lasting solution to the problems in Mindanao," Mr. Iqbal said, referring to the peace pact.
In a separate interview, Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process Anabelle T. Abaya said peace negotiations with the MILF will resume after the Christmas season.
Although the government peace negotiating panel is looking at forging a possible peace deal within the administration’s term, Ms. Abaya said, imposing a deadline may be misinterpreted as imposing "undue pressure" on both panels.
Ms. Abaya said the state’s draft proposal is guided by two principles: "no fractionalizing of the country" and "all agreements must be within the bounds of the Constitution."
"We will be enlarging consultations to include local government units and the military," she said, noting that the Office of the Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process has concluded its consultations with the academe and civil society groups on the comprehensive peace agreement.
Formal talks collapsed last year after the proposed territorial deal which sought to give broader administrative powers to the Moros in an expanded Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) hit a constitutional snag in October.
The MILF, which split from the larger Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), has been fighting for a separate state in Southern Mindanao since 1978.
The MNLF signed a peace pact with the government in 1996 paving the way for the creation of the ARMM which the MILF rejected.
The ARMM groups the provinces of Basilan, Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Toast Remarks by US President Barack Obama at the 2009 Nobel Banquet
The Grand Hotel, Oslo, Norway
December 10, 2009
Thank you very much. Your Majesties, Your Excellencies, Your Royal Highnesses -- to all my friends, my family. This is obviously an extraordinary evening, and I must say -- I was telling the committee members that, having entirely exhausted myself with the speech this afternoon -- (laughter and applause) -- I have -- I spoke for a very long time. (Laughter.) I have only a very few words to say.
First of all, I would like to thank the committee once again for the extraordinary confidence that they placed in me and this great honor that I have received tonight. As I indicated before, no one was more surprised than me. (Laughter.) And I have to say that when the chairman spoke introducing me, I told him afterwards that I thought it was an excellent speech and that I was almost convinced that I deserved it. (Laughter and applause.)
I also wanted to pick up on a theme in both our speeches, and that is the extraordinary power that this prize has in lifting up those who otherwise would be forgotten; in magnifying the cause of justice when it's confronting great resistance. In 1964, when Dr. King received this prize, the course of the civil rights movement was still uncertain. How that would play itself out was not yet entirely known. And for a Baptist preacher from the South to be lifted up on the international stage, to highlight the fact that this was not simply a parochial struggle but was rather a struggle for the ages, a struggle for the hearts and minds not just of the American people but of the world, and how we thought about each other and how we thought about minorities in countries everywhere -- what extraordinary power that had. And as a consequence, I think it's fair to say that it helped to put the wind behind the sails of a movement that is largely responsible for both Michelle and my presence here tonight.
You know, it's obviously one of life's great ironies that Alfred Nobel, the man responsible for inventing dynamite -- (laughter) -- helped to establish this extraordinary moral force in the world. He bequeathed his largest share of fortune to the Nobel prizes and the roster of Nobel laureates has grown to include not only the finest minds in science and literature and economics, but I think what captivates people most is the giants of peace that it has acknowledged.
When Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament on November 27, 1895, it's not entirely clear that he could have foreseen the impact that his prizes would have. But he did know this truth: that our destinies are what we make of them, and that each of us in our own lives can do our part in order to make a more just and lasting peace and forge the kind of world that we want to bequeath to our children and our grandchildren.
That has been the mission of the committee. It has carried out over these 108 years this charge with extraordinary diligence, creativity, and as I indicated today at lunch, great moral imagination. And so, for that, I am grateful not only to the current committee, but past committee members who I know are here. The world thanks you for the work that you do. And as a consequence, what I'd like to do is to propose a toast -- once I get some wine. (Laughter.)
I'd like to propose -- actually, if you will bear with me, in Washington, in the Senate or the House, this is called a point of personal privilege. I don't want to make her cry, but I do want to say my sister is here tonight, and it was in one of the earlier toasts discussed a passage in my book that talks about my mother and the values that she instilled in me. And I do think that it's worth noting that, to the extent I am deserving of this esteemed prize, either now or in the future, it will be largely because of her and the largeness of her heart. (Applause.)
So, to Alfred Nobel -- Skål. Cheers. Thank you. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
December 10, 2009
Thank you very much. Your Majesties, Your Excellencies, Your Royal Highnesses -- to all my friends, my family. This is obviously an extraordinary evening, and I must say -- I was telling the committee members that, having entirely exhausted myself with the speech this afternoon -- (laughter and applause) -- I have -- I spoke for a very long time. (Laughter.) I have only a very few words to say.
First of all, I would like to thank the committee once again for the extraordinary confidence that they placed in me and this great honor that I have received tonight. As I indicated before, no one was more surprised than me. (Laughter.) And I have to say that when the chairman spoke introducing me, I told him afterwards that I thought it was an excellent speech and that I was almost convinced that I deserved it. (Laughter and applause.)
I also wanted to pick up on a theme in both our speeches, and that is the extraordinary power that this prize has in lifting up those who otherwise would be forgotten; in magnifying the cause of justice when it's confronting great resistance. In 1964, when Dr. King received this prize, the course of the civil rights movement was still uncertain. How that would play itself out was not yet entirely known. And for a Baptist preacher from the South to be lifted up on the international stage, to highlight the fact that this was not simply a parochial struggle but was rather a struggle for the ages, a struggle for the hearts and minds not just of the American people but of the world, and how we thought about each other and how we thought about minorities in countries everywhere -- what extraordinary power that had. And as a consequence, I think it's fair to say that it helped to put the wind behind the sails of a movement that is largely responsible for both Michelle and my presence here tonight.
You know, it's obviously one of life's great ironies that Alfred Nobel, the man responsible for inventing dynamite -- (laughter) -- helped to establish this extraordinary moral force in the world. He bequeathed his largest share of fortune to the Nobel prizes and the roster of Nobel laureates has grown to include not only the finest minds in science and literature and economics, but I think what captivates people most is the giants of peace that it has acknowledged.
When Alfred Nobel signed his last will and testament on November 27, 1895, it's not entirely clear that he could have foreseen the impact that his prizes would have. But he did know this truth: that our destinies are what we make of them, and that each of us in our own lives can do our part in order to make a more just and lasting peace and forge the kind of world that we want to bequeath to our children and our grandchildren.
That has been the mission of the committee. It has carried out over these 108 years this charge with extraordinary diligence, creativity, and as I indicated today at lunch, great moral imagination. And so, for that, I am grateful not only to the current committee, but past committee members who I know are here. The world thanks you for the work that you do. And as a consequence, what I'd like to do is to propose a toast -- once I get some wine. (Laughter.)
I'd like to propose -- actually, if you will bear with me, in Washington, in the Senate or the House, this is called a point of personal privilege. I don't want to make her cry, but I do want to say my sister is here tonight, and it was in one of the earlier toasts discussed a passage in my book that talks about my mother and the values that she instilled in me. And I do think that it's worth noting that, to the extent I am deserving of this esteemed prize, either now or in the future, it will be largely because of her and the largeness of her heart. (Applause.)
So, to Alfred Nobel -- Skål. Cheers. Thank you. Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Text of US President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech
Text of US President Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech delivered in Oslo, Norway on 10 December 2009.
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.
In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.
But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?
To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.
And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.
Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.
I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.
It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.
I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.
Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."
Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)
Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Your Majesties, Your Royal Highnesses, distinguished members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, citizens of America, and citizens of the world:
I receive this honor with deep gratitude and great humility. It is an award that speaks to our highest aspirations -- that for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.
And yet I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the considerable controversy that your generous decision has generated. (Laughter.) In part, this is because I am at the beginning, and not the end, of my labors on the world stage. Compared to some of the giants of history who've received this prize -- Schweitzer and King; Marshall and Mandela -- my accomplishments are slight. And then there are the men and women around the world who have been jailed and beaten in the pursuit of justice; those who toil in humanitarian organizations to relieve suffering; the unrecognized millions whose quiet acts of courage and compassion inspire even the most hardened cynics. I cannot argue with those who find these men and women -- some known, some obscure to all but those they help -- to be far more deserving of this honor than I.
But perhaps the most profound issue surrounding my receipt of this prize is the fact that I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek; one in which we are joined by 42 other countries -- including Norway -- in an effort to defend ourselves and all nations from further attacks.
Still, we are at war, and I'm responsible for the deployment of thousands of young Americans to battle in a distant land. Some will kill, and some will be killed. And so I come here with an acute sense of the costs of armed conflict -- filled with difficult questions about the relationship between war and peace, and our effort to replace one with the other.
Now these questions are not new. War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
In the wake of such destruction, and with the advent of the nuclear age, it became clear to victor and vanquished alike that the world needed institutions to prevent another world war. And so, a quarter century after the United States Senate rejected the League of Nations -- an idea for which Woodrow Wilson received this prize -- America led the world in constructing an architecture to keep the peace: a Marshall Plan and a United Nations, mechanisms to govern the waging of war, treaties to protect human rights, prevent genocide, restrict the most dangerous weapons.
In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
And yet, a decade into a new century, this old architecture is buckling under the weight of new threats. The world may no longer shudder at the prospect of war between two nuclear superpowers, but proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe. Terrorism has long been a tactic, but modern technology allows a few small men with outsized rage to murder innocents on a horrific scale.
Moreover, wars between nations have increasingly given way to wars within nations. The resurgence of ethnic or sectarian conflicts; the growth of secessionist movements, insurgencies, and failed states -- all these things have increasingly trapped civilians in unending chaos. In today's wars, many more civilians are killed than soldiers; the seeds of future conflict are sown, economies are wrecked, civil societies torn asunder, refugees amassed, children scarred.
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. What I do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. And it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace.
We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.
I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.
But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism -- it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
I raise this point, I begin with this point because in many countries there is a deep ambivalence about military action today, no matter what the cause. And at times, this is joined by a reflexive suspicion of America, the world's sole military superpower.
But the world must remember that it was not simply international institutions -- not just treaties and declarations -- that brought stability to a post-World War II world. Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest -- because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others' children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.
So yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace. And yet this truth must coexist with another -- that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy. The soldier's courage and sacrifice is full of glory, expressing devotion to country, to cause, to comrades in arms. But war itself is never glorious, and we must never trumpet it as such.
So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths -- that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. "Let us focus," he said, "on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions." A gradual evolution of human institutions.
What might this evolution look like? What might these practical steps be?
To begin with, I believe that all nations -- strong and weak alike -- must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I -- like any head of state -- reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don't.
The world rallied around America after the 9/11 attacks, and continues to support our efforts in Afghanistan, because of the horror of those senseless attacks and the recognized principle of self-defense. Likewise, the world recognized the need to confront Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait -- a consensus that sent a clear message to all about the cost of aggression.
Furthermore, America -- in fact, no nation -- can insist that others follow the rules of the road if we refuse to follow them ourselves. For when we don't, our actions appear arbitrary and undercut the legitimacy of future interventions, no matter how justified.
And this becomes particularly important when the purpose of military action extends beyond self-defense or the defense of one nation against an aggressor. More and more, we all confront difficult questions about how to prevent the slaughter of civilians by their own government, or to stop a civil war whose violence and suffering can engulf an entire region.
I believe that force can be justified on humanitarian grounds, as it was in the Balkans, or in other places that have been scarred by war. Inaction tears at our conscience and can lead to more costly intervention later. That's why all responsible nations must embrace the role that militaries with a clear mandate can play to keep the peace.
America's commitment to global security will never waver. But in a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
The leaders and soldiers of NATO countries, and other friends and allies, demonstrate this truth through the capacity and courage they've shown in Afghanistan. But in many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice. That's why NATO continues to be indispensable. That's why we must strengthen U.N. and regional peacekeeping, and not leave the task to a few countries. That's why we honor those who return home from peacekeeping and training abroad to Oslo and Rome; to Ottawa and Sydney; to Dhaka and Kigali -- we honor them not as makers of war, but of wagers -- but as wagers of peace.
Let me make one final point about the use of force. Even as we make difficult decisions about going to war, we must also think clearly about how we fight it. The Nobel Committee recognized this truth in awarding its first prize for peace to Henry Dunant -- the founder of the Red Cross, and a driving force behind the Geneva Conventions.
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. That is why I prohibited torture. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed. And that is why I have reaffirmed America's commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. (Applause.) And we honor -- we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it's easy, but when it is hard.
I have spoken at some length to the question that must weigh on our minds and our hearts as we choose to wage war. But let me now turn to our effort to avoid such tragic choices, and speak of three ways that we can build a just and lasting peace.
First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior -- for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something. Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure -- and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. And I'm working with President Medvedev to reduce America and Russia's nuclear stockpiles.
But it is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
The same principle applies to those who violate international laws by brutalizing their own people. When there is genocide in Darfur, systematic rape in Congo, repression in Burma -- there must be consequences. Yes, there will be engagement; yes, there will be diplomacy -- but there must be consequences when those things fail. And the closer we stand together, the less likely we will be faced with the choice between armed intervention and complicity in oppression.
This brings me to a second point -- the nature of the peace that we seek. For peace is not merely the absence of visible conflict. Only a just peace based on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual can truly be lasting.
It was this insight that drove drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights after the Second World War. In the wake of devastation, they recognized that if human rights are not protected, peace is a hollow promise.
And yet too often, these words are ignored. For some countries, the failure to uphold human rights is excused by the false suggestion that these are somehow Western principles, foreign to local cultures or stages of a nation's development. And within America, there has long been a tension between those who describe themselves as realists or idealists -- a tension that suggests a stark choice between the narrow pursuit of interests or an endless campaign to impose our values around the world.
I reject these choices. I believe that peace is unstable where citizens are denied the right to speak freely or worship as they please; choose their own leaders or assemble without fear. Pent-up grievances fester, and the suppression of tribal and religious identity can lead to violence. We also know that the opposite is true. Only when Europe became free did it finally find peace. America has never fought a war against a democracy, and our closest friends are governments that protect the rights of their citizens. No matter how callously defined, neither America's interests -- nor the world's -- are served by the denial of human aspirations.
So even as we respect the unique culture and traditions of different countries, America will always be a voice for those aspirations that are universal. We will bear witness to the quiet dignity of reformers like Aung Sang Suu Kyi; to the bravery of Zimbabweans who cast their ballots in the face of beatings; to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.
Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach -- condemnation without discussion -- can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.
In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies. Pope John Paul's engagement with Poland created space not just for the Catholic Church, but for labor leaders like Lech Walesa. Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe. There's no simple formula here. But we must try as best we can to balance isolation and engagement, pressure and incentives, so that human rights and dignity are advanced over time.
Third, a just peace includes not only civil and political rights -- it must encompass economic security and opportunity. For true peace is not just freedom from fear, but freedom from want.
It is undoubtedly true that development rarely takes root without security; it is also true that security does not exist where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine and shelter they need to survive. It does not exist where children can't aspire to a decent education or a job that supports a family. The absence of hope can rot a society from within.
And that's why helping farmers feed their own people -- or nations educate their children and care for the sick -- is not mere charity. It's also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, more famine, more mass displacement -- all of which will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and environmental activists who call for swift and forceful action -- it's military leaders in my own country and others who understand our common security hangs in the balance.
Agreements among nations. Strong institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development. All these are vital ingredients in bringing about the evolution that President Kennedy spoke about. And yet, I do not believe that we will have the will, the determination, the staying power, to complete this work without something more -- and that's the continued expansion of our moral imagination; an insistence that there's something irreducible that we all share.
As the world grows smaller, you might think it would be easier for human beings to recognize how similar we are; to understand that we're all basically seeking the same things; that we all hope for the chance to live out our lives with some measure of happiness and fulfillment for ourselves and our families.
And yet somehow, given the dizzying pace of globalization, the cultural leveling of modernity, it perhaps comes as no surprise that people fear the loss of what they cherish in their particular identities -- their race, their tribe, and perhaps most powerfully their religion. In some places, this fear has led to conflict. At times, it even feels like we're moving backwards. We see it in the Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden. We see it in nations that are torn asunder by tribal lines.
And most dangerously, we see it in the way that religion is used to justify the murder of innocents by those who have distorted and defiled the great religion of Islam, and who attacked my country from Afghanistan. These extremists are not the first to kill in the name of God; the cruelties of the Crusades are amply recorded. But they remind us that no Holy War can ever be a just war. For if you truly believe that you are carrying out divine will, then there is no need for restraint -- no need to spare the pregnant mother, or the medic, or the Red Cross worker, or even a person of one's own faith. Such a warped view of religion is not just incompatible with the concept of peace, but I believe it's incompatible with the very purpose of faith -- for the one rule that lies at the heart of every major religion is that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
Adhering to this law of love has always been the core struggle of human nature. For we are fallible. We make mistakes, and fall victim to the temptations of pride, and power, and sometimes evil. Even those of us with the best of intentions will at times fail to right the wrongs before us.
But we do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected. We do not have to live in an idealized world to still reach for those ideals that will make it a better place. The non-violence practiced by men like Gandhi and King may not have been practical or possible in every circumstance, but the love that they preached -- their fundamental faith in human progress -- that must always be the North Star that guides us on our journey.
For if we lose that faith -- if we dismiss it as silly or naïve; if we divorce it from the decisions that we make on issues of war and peace -- then we lose what's best about humanity. We lose our sense of possibility. We lose our moral compass.
Like generations have before us, we must reject that future. As Dr. King said at this occasion so many years ago, "I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present condition makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him."
Let us reach for the world that ought to be -- that spark of the divine that still stirs within each of our souls. (Applause.)
Somewhere today, in the here and now, in the world as it is, a soldier sees he's outgunned, but stands firm to keep the peace. Somewhere today, in this world, a young protestor awaits the brutality of her government, but has the courage to march on. Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's dreams.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the intractability of depravation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed, we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace. We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the hope of all the world; and at this moment of challenge, that must be our work here on Earth.
Thank you very much. (Applause.)
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Human Rights monitoring group launched in Cotabato City
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
POSITION PAPER ON THE EID’L FITR INCIDENT
Affected and distressed by the military operations and aerial bombardment of the forces of the Philippine Marines in Sitio Talibang, Buansa, Indanan, Sulu, on the day of the Eid’l Fitr celebration of September 20, 2009, as well as the impact brought about by said operations to thousands of residents in Sulu, particularly in the municipalities of Indanan and Panamao;
Cognizant of the fact that, in addition to: 1) the Ei’dl Fitr Incident, 2) the State of Emergency that was previously placed on the entire province of Sulu due to the kidnapping of three ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) volunteers early this year, and 3) the most recent explosion within the premises of the Jolo Municipal Hall, the situation in the province has remained fluid, volatile and explosive;
Aware that public pronouncements made by government agencies and entities have come out to be contrary to the unpublished or unpublicized pronouncements made by other sectors and stakeholders involved in, or affected by, the said Eid’l Fitr incident;
and
Concerned that tension among the people of Sulu will continue to remain high because of perceived continuation of occurrences of human rights abuses and violations made by those in authority;
We, the undersigned leaders and representatives of Moro civil society organizations in Mindanao and Sulu, have decided to conduct a series of data gathering activities and dialogues with the various sectors and stakeholders of the province of Sulu from October 31 to December 9, 2009 to acquire, glean and collate information, insights, perspectives and recommendations from: 1) the community leaders of Panamao and Indanan, 2) the LGU leaders of Panamao and Indanan, 3) the local civil society organizations of Sulu, 4) the local MNLF leadership, 5) the provincial PNP and 6) the Philippine Marines assigned in Sulu in an attempt to find ways to bring to public light the stories of all sides concerned about what had happened in Indanan, Sulu on September 20, 2009.
In light of the aforesaid situation and initiative, as well as based on the information gathered, we hereby make the following assertions:
Having made all the afore-mentioned assertions, we make the following calls:
Signed this 11th day of December, 2009 at Cecille’s Convention Center, Tumaga Porcentro, Zamboanga City.
(sgd.) SAMMY P. MAULANA
Secretary-General
Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society
(CBCS)
(sgd.) FATMAWATI SALAPUDDIN
Secretary-General
Bangsamoro Women Solidarity Forum
(BWSF)
(sgd.) EDMUND GUMBAHALI
Lead Convenor
Concerned Citizens of Sulu
(sgd.) VANDRAZEL BIROWA
Chairman
Ittihadus Sabab, Inc.
(sgd.) MUNIB A. KAHAL
President
DAWAT
(sgd.) SHARIF ALUNAN HAIRAL
President
Halaqatul Qur’an Foundation
(sgd.) FARIDA HADJULANI
Chairwoman
Tanjuh Sulu, Inc.
(sgd.) JUMDA SABAANI
Executive Director
MURID, Inc.
(sgd.) SALIHA KALI
President
PAKAPASUG
(sgd.) JOCELYN BASALUDDIN
President
Jaga Kasulutan
(sgd.) ZURAIDA GUMBAHALI
Coordinator
Jaga Lupah Sug
Cognizant of the fact that, in addition to: 1) the Ei’dl Fitr Incident, 2) the State of Emergency that was previously placed on the entire province of Sulu due to the kidnapping of three ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) volunteers early this year, and 3) the most recent explosion within the premises of the Jolo Municipal Hall, the situation in the province has remained fluid, volatile and explosive;
Aware that public pronouncements made by government agencies and entities have come out to be contrary to the unpublished or unpublicized pronouncements made by other sectors and stakeholders involved in, or affected by, the said Eid’l Fitr incident;
and
Concerned that tension among the people of Sulu will continue to remain high because of perceived continuation of occurrences of human rights abuses and violations made by those in authority;
We, the undersigned leaders and representatives of Moro civil society organizations in Mindanao and Sulu, have decided to conduct a series of data gathering activities and dialogues with the various sectors and stakeholders of the province of Sulu from October 31 to December 9, 2009 to acquire, glean and collate information, insights, perspectives and recommendations from: 1) the community leaders of Panamao and Indanan, 2) the LGU leaders of Panamao and Indanan, 3) the local civil society organizations of Sulu, 4) the local MNLF leadership, 5) the provincial PNP and 6) the Philippine Marines assigned in Sulu in an attempt to find ways to bring to public light the stories of all sides concerned about what had happened in Indanan, Sulu on September 20, 2009.
In light of the aforesaid situation and initiative, as well as based on the information gathered, we hereby make the following assertions:
- That, although it was claimed by the Philippine Marines that it was the alleged convergence of Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) elements that was being targeted by their military operations and bombardment, the community leaders of Indanan and Panamao, the LGU leaders of Indanan and Panamao and the MNLF leaders based in Camp Marang unanimously asserted that it was not the ASG but the MNLF camp and communities that were hit by said military operations.
- That said operations are regarded as a sacrilege to Islam. It is also seen as a clear proof of discrimination and an utter disrespect to the dignity of the Tausug people, particularly by those who had really given the orders for the military operations to commence to the Muslim Ummah of Sulu because it was done during the day of Eid’l Fitr and because those who were directly and adversely affected were not the converged ASG groups but the MNLF and the civilian populace of Indanan and Panamao who were not only deprived and prevented from performing their religious obligations, but also were forced to evacuate.
- The LGUs of Sulu are constrained from stopping military operations in their respective areas. They have no say on government decision. Instead, they are asked to comply with the usual call of the provincial government to support the military operations by way of organizing the para-military force multipliers in order to augment military troops dispatched in the area.
- That civilian residents from the areas where the military operations were done on September 20, 2009 remain in their present evacuation sites because the Philippine Marines still occupying these areas. These civilians are fearful that another series of encounter with between the Marines and the AFP will recur. They are also consequently prevented from returning to their lands to revive their largely agricultural means of livelihood.
- That said incident is an apparent sign that the national government has reduced the level of importance and value of the 1996 Final Peace Agreement and the still ongoing peace process with the MNLF.
- That, only if this issue between the MNLF and the Marines in Sulu will be resolved and cleared, will the lawless elements in Sulu be identified and apprehended.
- That the general populace of Sulu is outraged by the acts and effects of the Eid’l Fitr Incident.
- That in the entire story after the Eid’l Fitr Incident, not once did the ASG figure in any movement or encounter. Rather, all recorded encounters were between the Philippine Marines and the MNLF local forces and/or enraged local civilians.
- That the media ban in Sulu has prevented the press from acquiring accurate and timely information about what is happening within the province.
Having made all the afore-mentioned assertions, we make the following calls:
- That those really responsible for ordering the military operations that caused the Eid’l Fitr Incident be made accountable for their actions and penalized. A public apology is not enough.
- That the Philippine Marines and their superiors first weigh the situation and sincerely and honestly take into consideration the safety and plight of the civilians before they conduct such operations in the future.
- That the Philippine Marines observe and exercise high standards of precision, efficiency, discernment and sense of humanity before conducting such operation in the future.
- That freedom of religion be observed and promoted by those in government, not only in words or on paper, but also by actual deeds.
- That the Philippine Marines occupying the lands of the displaced civilians of Indanan and Panamao vacate these areas immediately in order for the people to return and be allowed to recoup what little they could salvage from their agricultural means of livelihood.
- That the United Nations and the entire international community condemn such actions and pressure national government to make fully accountable and culpable those who had conceptualized, designed, ordered and implemented said military operations.
- That the national government and the MNLF leadership sit down and focus on the root causes of the chronic armed conflicts in Sulu and incorporate the events of the Eid’l Fitr Incident into the ongoing Tripartite Review.
- That the media ban in Sulu be lifted to prevent future potentials for human rights violations and acts of impunity therein.
Signed this 11th day of December, 2009 at Cecille’s Convention Center, Tumaga Porcentro, Zamboanga City.
(sgd.) SAMMY P. MAULANA
Secretary-General
Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society
(CBCS)
(sgd.) FATMAWATI SALAPUDDIN
Secretary-General
Bangsamoro Women Solidarity Forum
(BWSF)
(sgd.) EDMUND GUMBAHALI
Lead Convenor
Concerned Citizens of Sulu
(sgd.) VANDRAZEL BIROWA
Chairman
Ittihadus Sabab, Inc.
(sgd.) MUNIB A. KAHAL
President
DAWAT
(sgd.) SHARIF ALUNAN HAIRAL
President
Halaqatul Qur’an Foundation
(sgd.) FARIDA HADJULANI
Chairwoman
Tanjuh Sulu, Inc.
(sgd.) JUMDA SABAANI
Executive Director
MURID, Inc.
(sgd.) SALIHA KALI
President
PAKAPASUG
(sgd.) JOCELYN BASALUDDIN
President
Jaga Kasulutan
(sgd.) ZURAIDA GUMBAHALI
Coordinator
Jaga Lupah Sug
Sunday, December 6, 2009
PRESS STATEMENT of Mindanao Peaceweavers
The Mindanao Peaceweavers (MPW) expresses alarm on the declaration of Martial Law in Maguindanao purportedly to enable government to move freely and get the witnesses and gather evidence without fear in relation to the massacre of 60 civilians, mostly women, in the Ampatuan stronghold last November 23.
The declaration, contained in Proclamation 1959, also suspended the writ of habeas corpus in the province. The declaration was prompted by reports of “armed groups in the province of Maguindanao” establishing positions “to resist government troops, thereby depriving the Executive of its powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to maintain public order and safety” and of the “deteriorating condition of peace and order to the extent that the local judicial system and other government mechanisms in the province are not functioning, thus endangering public safety.”
Malacanang said armed groups, “numbering 40, 100, 300, and 400” are spread out in the province to prevent the arrests of the Ampatuans.
MPW believes that the declaration of Martial Law is a manifestation of the failure of governance in the country. There is no need to declare Martial Law for government to uphold the protection of the public and ensure the rule of law.
The culture of impunity traces itself back to Malacanang which has allowed local officials to convert their private armed groups into legal entities as civilian volunteer organizations (CVOs) despite the constitutional provision which bans private armed groups. This executive order should instead be immediately revoked. It is not only the Ampatuans who have built their own virtual private army. Tragedies like the Ampatuan massacre are waiting to happen if other "warlords" and local officials all over the country are allowed to maintain their own "armies". Already, we take note of a build up of these kinds of armed entities in Sulu, Visayas and Luzon.
While we call on the immediate abrogation of Martial Law in Maguindanao, MPW meanwhile calls on the "peace general", Lt. Gen Raymundo Ferrer, chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Eastern Mindanao Command who is tasked to take administrative control of Maguindanao to continue to be circumspect, transparent and ensure the strict observance of human rights by his soldiers. (30)
The declaration, contained in Proclamation 1959, also suspended the writ of habeas corpus in the province. The declaration was prompted by reports of “armed groups in the province of Maguindanao” establishing positions “to resist government troops, thereby depriving the Executive of its powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land and to maintain public order and safety” and of the “deteriorating condition of peace and order to the extent that the local judicial system and other government mechanisms in the province are not functioning, thus endangering public safety.”
Malacanang said armed groups, “numbering 40, 100, 300, and 400” are spread out in the province to prevent the arrests of the Ampatuans.
MPW believes that the declaration of Martial Law is a manifestation of the failure of governance in the country. There is no need to declare Martial Law for government to uphold the protection of the public and ensure the rule of law.
The culture of impunity traces itself back to Malacanang which has allowed local officials to convert their private armed groups into legal entities as civilian volunteer organizations (CVOs) despite the constitutional provision which bans private armed groups. This executive order should instead be immediately revoked. It is not only the Ampatuans who have built their own virtual private army. Tragedies like the Ampatuan massacre are waiting to happen if other "warlords" and local officials all over the country are allowed to maintain their own "armies". Already, we take note of a build up of these kinds of armed entities in Sulu, Visayas and Luzon.
While we call on the immediate abrogation of Martial Law in Maguindanao, MPW meanwhile calls on the "peace general", Lt. Gen Raymundo Ferrer, chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) Eastern Mindanao Command who is tasked to take administrative control of Maguindanao to continue to be circumspect, transparent and ensure the strict observance of human rights by his soldiers. (30)
Full text: Arroyo's declaration of martial law in Maguindanao
(Text of martial law declaration as read by Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita at 7 a.m. Saturday morning in Malacanang. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed the proclamation on Friday evening.)
Proclamation 1959: Proclaiming a State of Martial Law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the province of Maguindanao except for certain areas.
Whereas, Proclamation No. 1946 was issued on 24 November 2009 declaring a state of emergency in the provinces of Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and the City of Cotabato for the purpose of preventing and suppressing lawless violence in the aforesaid areas.
Whereas, Sec. 18 Art. VII of the Constitution provides that “in case of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it, the President may, for a period not exceeding 60 days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law."
Whereas, Republic Act 6986 provides that “the crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the government for the purpose of depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives."
Whereas, heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao have established positions to resist government troops thereby depriving the Executive of its powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land to maintain public order and safety.
Whereas, the condition of peace and order in the province of Maguindanao has deteriorated to the extent that local judicial system and other government mechanisms in the province are not functioning; thus, endangering public safety.
Whereas, the implementing operational guidelines of the GRP-MILF agreement on the General Cessation of Hostilities dated 14 Nov. 1997 provides that the following is considered a prohibited hostile act: “establishment of checkpoints except those necessary for the GRP’s enforcement and maintenance of peace and order and for the defense and security of the MILF in their identified areas as jointly determined by GRP and MILF."
Now, therefore I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and by law, do hereby proclaim as follows:
Sec. 1: There is hereby declared a state of martial law in the province of Maguindanao except for the identified areas of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front as referred to in the implementing operational guidelines of the GRP-MILF agreement on the General Cessation of Hostilities.
Sec. 2: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall likewise be suspended in the aforesaid area for the duration of the state of martial law.
Done in the City of Manila this 4th day of December in the Year of Our Lord, Two Thousand and Nine.
(Originally Signed)
Gloria M. Arroyo
By the President:
(Originally Signed)
Eduardo Ermita
Executive Secretary
Proclamation 1959: Proclaiming a State of Martial Law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in the province of Maguindanao except for certain areas.
Whereas, Proclamation No. 1946 was issued on 24 November 2009 declaring a state of emergency in the provinces of Maguindanao, Sultan Kudarat and the City of Cotabato for the purpose of preventing and suppressing lawless violence in the aforesaid areas.
Whereas, Sec. 18 Art. VII of the Constitution provides that “in case of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it, the President may, for a period not exceeding 60 days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law."
Whereas, Republic Act 6986 provides that “the crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and taking arms against the government for the purpose of depriving the Chief Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives."
Whereas, heavily armed groups in the province of Maguindanao have established positions to resist government troops thereby depriving the Executive of its powers and prerogatives to enforce the laws of the land to maintain public order and safety.
Whereas, the condition of peace and order in the province of Maguindanao has deteriorated to the extent that local judicial system and other government mechanisms in the province are not functioning; thus, endangering public safety.
Whereas, the implementing operational guidelines of the GRP-MILF agreement on the General Cessation of Hostilities dated 14 Nov. 1997 provides that the following is considered a prohibited hostile act: “establishment of checkpoints except those necessary for the GRP’s enforcement and maintenance of peace and order and for the defense and security of the MILF in their identified areas as jointly determined by GRP and MILF."
Now, therefore I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution and by law, do hereby proclaim as follows:
Sec. 1: There is hereby declared a state of martial law in the province of Maguindanao except for the identified areas of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front as referred to in the implementing operational guidelines of the GRP-MILF agreement on the General Cessation of Hostilities.
Sec. 2: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall likewise be suspended in the aforesaid area for the duration of the state of martial law.
Done in the City of Manila this 4th day of December in the Year of Our Lord, Two Thousand and Nine.
(Originally Signed)
Gloria M. Arroyo
By the President:
(Originally Signed)
Eduardo Ermita
Executive Secretary
Friday, December 4, 2009
Arroyo orders martial law in Maguindanao
abs-cbnNEWS.com | 12/04/2009 7:51 PM
MANILA-(3rd UPDATE)-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has ordered a state of martial law in Maguindanao province, which could pave the way for the swift arrests of other suspects who have been linked to the November 23 massacre which killed 57 innocent civilians.
Government sources, who declined to be named, said martial law will take effect Saturday in Maguindanao. The sources said law enforcement teams were mobilized at 11 p.m. Friday to implement the order.
President Arroyo, who is also commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, reportedly approved the order Thursday night.
While martial law is in effect, Lt. Gen. Raymundo Ferrer, AFP Eastern Mindanao commander, will take over from Maguindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan Sr., one of the suspects in the massacre, as the provincial military governor.
Asked for comment, EastMinCom spokesman Maj. Randolph Cabangbang said their unit "has not received any order for implementation."
Armed Forces spokesman Lt. Col. Romeo Brawner said the report was not true while Presidential Adviser on Mindanao Affairs Jesus Dureza said he will get back with the media "if there's definite word."
"Usually, martial law declaration is not announced until action starts on the ground. Otherwise, the purpose and objective is lost," he said in a text message.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said he will await the report of the President to Congress, which is required by the Constitution.
Col. Leo Cresente Ferrer, acting commander of the 601st Brigade, said it was the first time he had heard news of a martial law declaration in Maguindanao. He added that he did not see the need for it since the military has everything under control.
Congress may not be able to convene
When previously asked about martial law in the south, House Speaker Prospero Nograles, said last Monday (not Friday as we earlier reported): "This issue must be recommended by the National Security cluster group and the military on the ground to enable the president to correctly assess the situation."
Nograles said Congress may find it hard to convene and assess the declaration of martial law.
Under the Constitution, "Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President."
On the president's initiative, Congress may also "extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it."
Nograles said: "Martial law can be impractical at this time as it requires the approval of Congress, which will most likely have difficulty mustering a quorum due to the holidays and the election season. Even if we have a quorum, I don't think our senators and congressmen will favor this because it will certainly cause public uproar which can endanger their reelection bid."
"A limited state of emergency in Maguindanao and nearby provinces is sufficient to address the problem related to the Maguindanao massacre," he added.
5 other Ampatuans
On Friday, Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera said they will issue subpoenas to Ampatuan Sr. and four other members of his clan for a preliminary investigation into their possible involvement in the massacre.
Devanadera said the other clan members who will be summoned to appear in the preliminary investigations are Datu Ulo Ampatuan, Mamasapano town Mayor Bahnarin Ampatuan, and vice-mayors Kanor Ampatuan and Tony Kenis Ampatuan.
Only Ampatuan Sr.'s son and namesake, Datu Unsay town Mayor Andal Ampatuan Jr., has been arrested and detained at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) headquarters in Manila.
Ampatuan Jr. has been charged with 25 counts of murder.
Martial law under 1987 Charter
Under the 1987 Constitution, the declaration of martial law will suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which means some citizens may be arrested without warrants.
Section 18 of the Charter states: "The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law."
However, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus only applies to persons charged for "rebellion" or offenses connected with an invasion.
"The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion," the Constitution also says.
It also adds: "During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released."
as of 12/05/2009 1:14 AM
Source: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/12/04/09/arroyo-orders-martial-law-maguindanao
MANILA-(3rd UPDATE)-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has ordered a state of martial law in Maguindanao province, which could pave the way for the swift arrests of other suspects who have been linked to the November 23 massacre which killed 57 innocent civilians.
Government sources, who declined to be named, said martial law will take effect Saturday in Maguindanao. The sources said law enforcement teams were mobilized at 11 p.m. Friday to implement the order.
President Arroyo, who is also commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, reportedly approved the order Thursday night.
While martial law is in effect, Lt. Gen. Raymundo Ferrer, AFP Eastern Mindanao commander, will take over from Maguindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan Sr., one of the suspects in the massacre, as the provincial military governor.
Asked for comment, EastMinCom spokesman Maj. Randolph Cabangbang said their unit "has not received any order for implementation."
Armed Forces spokesman Lt. Col. Romeo Brawner said the report was not true while Presidential Adviser on Mindanao Affairs Jesus Dureza said he will get back with the media "if there's definite word."
"Usually, martial law declaration is not announced until action starts on the ground. Otherwise, the purpose and objective is lost," he said in a text message.
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile said he will await the report of the President to Congress, which is required by the Constitution.
Col. Leo Cresente Ferrer, acting commander of the 601st Brigade, said it was the first time he had heard news of a martial law declaration in Maguindanao. He added that he did not see the need for it since the military has everything under control.
Congress may not be able to convene
When previously asked about martial law in the south, House Speaker Prospero Nograles, said last Monday (not Friday as we earlier reported): "This issue must be recommended by the National Security cluster group and the military on the ground to enable the president to correctly assess the situation."
Nograles said Congress may find it hard to convene and assess the declaration of martial law.
Under the Constitution, "Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President."
On the president's initiative, Congress may also "extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it."
Nograles said: "Martial law can be impractical at this time as it requires the approval of Congress, which will most likely have difficulty mustering a quorum due to the holidays and the election season. Even if we have a quorum, I don't think our senators and congressmen will favor this because it will certainly cause public uproar which can endanger their reelection bid."
"A limited state of emergency in Maguindanao and nearby provinces is sufficient to address the problem related to the Maguindanao massacre," he added.
5 other Ampatuans
On Friday, Justice Secretary Agnes Devanadera said they will issue subpoenas to Ampatuan Sr. and four other members of his clan for a preliminary investigation into their possible involvement in the massacre.
Devanadera said the other clan members who will be summoned to appear in the preliminary investigations are Datu Ulo Ampatuan, Mamasapano town Mayor Bahnarin Ampatuan, and vice-mayors Kanor Ampatuan and Tony Kenis Ampatuan.
Only Ampatuan Sr.'s son and namesake, Datu Unsay town Mayor Andal Ampatuan Jr., has been arrested and detained at the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) headquarters in Manila.
Ampatuan Jr. has been charged with 25 counts of murder.
Martial law under 1987 Charter
Under the 1987 Constitution, the declaration of martial law will suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which means some citizens may be arrested without warrants.
Section 18 of the Charter states: "The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law."
However, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus only applies to persons charged for "rebellion" or offenses connected with an invasion.
"The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected with, invasion," the Constitution also says.
It also adds: "During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released."
as of 12/05/2009 1:14 AM
Source: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/12/04/09/arroyo-orders-martial-law-maguindanao
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Moro civil society groups craft Bangsamoro agenda
MORO civil society organization (CSO) members gathered for a two-day crafting of a Comprehensive Bangsamoro Development Agenda (CBDA) at Regency Inn, Saturday.
A written agenda will be crafted containing the unified hope of the Moro people in the country. This document is planned to be included in the matters to be discussed in the forthcoming peace talks between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society chair Guiamel Alim said.
The Congress dubbed “Renewed Consensus and Solidarity Towards the Attainment of the Bangsamoro’s Self-Determinaton” would collect from 100 CSO representatives in the country.
Alim said the CBDA consists of 13 themes comprising issues the Moro people want covered by the peace negotiations. The issues include women and children, social services and health, land tenure, environment, economic development, education, youth, peace and security, relationship with non-Moros, human rights, culture, and political system, Alim said.
Alim also said that the Moro CSO wants to be part of the peace talks, which will define what is the future of the Moro government.
“Alam ho namin na ang (MILF) ay ginagawa na nila yung mga paraan para magkasundo sa gobyerno upang ma-define ang political status ng Bangsamoro. Whether ito man ay autonomy or federal yan po ay ipipresent na,” Alim said.
After constituting the CBDA, Alim said the CSO will lobby it to the government. “I-aadvocate ito ng Congress for constituent building. This document will serve as a political agreement na it will serve the purpose of everyone.”
“Alam ko po na may mga reaction na naririnig lang ang ‘Bangsamoro’ eh natatakot na. yan ho ay hindi po dapat mangyari. Ang Bangsamoro po ay katulad rin ng bawat Pilipino. At sila po ay magiging tunay na Pilipino kung sila ay mabibigyan ng maayos na karapatan,” Alim said.
“The right to self-determination does not only cover the right of the people to determine their political status, but also the right to freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development,” Alim said in vernacular.
He said Bangsamoro people also ask the peace panel to reconsider the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) which the Supreme Court discarded in October last year for purportedly being unconstitutional.
Another aspiration is that they opt for the MOA-AD to establish a Bangsamoro Juridical Entity as an alternative to an independent Islamic State for the Bangsamoro People, Alim said.
Mindanao State University of Marawi City professor Dr. Sukarno Tanggol said in a discussion that the Moro does not know where to turn to in case of judiciary matters.
“Hindi natin alam saan lalapit. Wala tayong sistema. Kaya naiisip ko na kailangan nating gumawa ng paraan para ang mga anak natin hindi na mahihirapan,” he said. (JCZ)
Published in the Sun.Star Davao newspaper on August 17, 2009.
A written agenda will be crafted containing the unified hope of the Moro people in the country. This document is planned to be included in the matters to be discussed in the forthcoming peace talks between the government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society chair Guiamel Alim said.
The Congress dubbed “Renewed Consensus and Solidarity Towards the Attainment of the Bangsamoro’s Self-Determinaton” would collect from 100 CSO representatives in the country.
Alim said the CBDA consists of 13 themes comprising issues the Moro people want covered by the peace negotiations. The issues include women and children, social services and health, land tenure, environment, economic development, education, youth, peace and security, relationship with non-Moros, human rights, culture, and political system, Alim said.
Alim also said that the Moro CSO wants to be part of the peace talks, which will define what is the future of the Moro government.
“Alam ho namin na ang (MILF) ay ginagawa na nila yung mga paraan para magkasundo sa gobyerno upang ma-define ang political status ng Bangsamoro. Whether ito man ay autonomy or federal yan po ay ipipresent na,” Alim said.
After constituting the CBDA, Alim said the CSO will lobby it to the government. “I-aadvocate ito ng Congress for constituent building. This document will serve as a political agreement na it will serve the purpose of everyone.”
“Alam ko po na may mga reaction na naririnig lang ang ‘Bangsamoro’ eh natatakot na. yan ho ay hindi po dapat mangyari. Ang Bangsamoro po ay katulad rin ng bawat Pilipino. At sila po ay magiging tunay na Pilipino kung sila ay mabibigyan ng maayos na karapatan,” Alim said.
“The right to self-determination does not only cover the right of the people to determine their political status, but also the right to freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development,” Alim said in vernacular.
He said Bangsamoro people also ask the peace panel to reconsider the Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain (MOA-AD) which the Supreme Court discarded in October last year for purportedly being unconstitutional.
Another aspiration is that they opt for the MOA-AD to establish a Bangsamoro Juridical Entity as an alternative to an independent Islamic State for the Bangsamoro People, Alim said.
Mindanao State University of Marawi City professor Dr. Sukarno Tanggol said in a discussion that the Moro does not know where to turn to in case of judiciary matters.
“Hindi natin alam saan lalapit. Wala tayong sistema. Kaya naiisip ko na kailangan nating gumawa ng paraan para ang mga anak natin hindi na mahihirapan,” he said. (JCZ)
Published in the Sun.Star Davao newspaper on August 17, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
