💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › bas-umali-reconnecting-traditional-links.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:16:27. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Reconnecting Traditional Links Author: Bas Umali Date: 2013 Language: en Topics: Malaysia, Philippines Source: *Pangayaw and Decolonizing Resistance: Anarchism in the Philippines.* Notes: All notes in this article by the editor. Edited by Gabriel Kuhn.
Background: the Sabah crisis, also known as the “Lahad Datu standoff,”
occurred in March–April 2013, when 235 militants claiming to belong to
the “Royal Security Forces of the Sultanate of Sulu and North Borneo”
occupied an area in the Lahad Datu district of the Malaysian state of
Sabah. They had arrived by boat from the island of Simunul in the
southern Philippines, sent by Jamalul Kiram III (1938–2013), who claimed
to rule over the Sultanate of Sulu, which has not been officially
recognized since 1986. After a six-week standoff, Malaysian security
forces regained control of the area, killing sixty-five of the
occupiers.
—the editor
---
The Tausūg by tradition are warriors. They have a history of resisting
invasion with violent confrontation. They are known for being tenacious
and would not easily back down in asserting their autonomy. Way back,
during Spanish and American colonization, the Tausūg were among the
fiercest enemies of the imperialists. During the Philippine-American
War, the Americans invented the .45 caliber handgun and made it standard
for its cavalry due to the .38 caliber handgun not being able to stop
the oncoming Tausūg warriors, who were wrapped in cloth to prevent
hemorrhage caused by bullets. Currently, Tausūg warriors are also
involved in the armed struggle for autonomy in the southern part of the
Philippines.
With this background, one could easily assume that the Tausūg came to
occupy Sabah in order to settle the Sabah conflict by claiming parts of
the island through armed confrontation. It could be assumed that through
their long experience of combat they acquired the ability to prevent
casualties on their part. Their experience in war instructs them not to
attack the enemy where it has great military advantage and not to
provoke an enemy powerful enough to crush them.
Based on public statements by Sultan Kiram III, however, they came to
Sabah peacefully to claim the area as a part of their ancestral domain.
They went there to establish their physical presence through nonviolent
means and to join the thousands of so-called Filipinos already staying
there. They did not attack and only prepared to defend themselves
against hostile elements. Aside from historical links, the Kirams also
possessed documents that reinforced their claims.
The Malaysian government intentionally sent a wrong signal to the public
when it announced that the Tausūg “invaded” Sabah. It was a threatening
statement to legitimize their military operations against the Tausūg and
against the poor people of Lahad Datu and the surrounding communities.
Worse, the Malaysian government issued a statement branding the Tausūg
as terrorists, which provided the justification to slaughter them.
The Malaysian government overreacted and deployed tanks, helicopters,
and even submarines. Since the crises has broken out, sixty-three deaths
and ninety-seven arrests related to the occupation have been reported.
Just like the with the Spratly Islands,[1] it is widely believed that
Sabah has oil deposits. The Malaysian government is surely aware of
this, so it is plausible to think that it is not the “invasion” that
worries them most.
On behalf of the Filipino people, Benigno Aquino III, the current
president, issued an order contradicting the interests of the indigenous
Tausūg’s claim by ordering them to back down. He should be reminded that
before the Spaniards came, the communities of the archipelago were part
of a macrosociety tied together by kinship and trade—not only in
Mindanao but also in the Visayas and on Luzon. The Philippine
archipelago was tightly linked to Malacca, Indonesia, Malaysia,
Thailand, and other communities in Southeast Asia. As the imperialists
divided the Southeast Asian region, they disconnected these links and a
network that had been established throughout a long indigenous process.
The current crisis is therefore a manifestation of a deeply rooted
complexity that cannot be resolved by enforcing a nationalist framework
and by coercing people into recognizing systems that are alien to the
communities of the archipelago.
Traditionally, we were not bound by the limits of nation-states; the
lifestyles of our ancestors were as fluid as the tide of the oceans that
connect us. In fact, the families of Lakan Dula, Rajah Matanda, and
Rajah Sulayman that formerly occupied Manila, Tondo, Bulacan, Sulu, and
Borneo were linked by affinity and consanguinity.[2]
Sultan Kiram III and his followers have already been found guilty; the
Malaysian government does not heed calls for a ceasefire and conducts
more military raids instead. The Philippine government’s only effort is
to offer a mercy ship, which is an insult to the direct action and
courageous deeds of the Tausūg.
We do not agree with waging war, and we condemn those who cause
hostilities; we condemn the Malaysian government for its decision to
launch an all-out offensive despite calls for a ceasefire.
We also condemn the Philippine government because of its incapacity to
handle the conflict. Its insensitivity and insincerity became clear when
Benigno Aquino III asked the Tausūg to go home. Instead of preparing a
lawsuit against Kiram, a dialogue could have been arranged to hear the
Tausūg’s side. The government could have offered assurances it would
explore all possible venues like the United Nations. That way, the
betrayal of the Tausūg could have been avoided.
We understand the sensitivity of the issue, and we fear an escalation
and an even bigger military confrontation. Careful negotiation is
needed. The political advisers of PNoy, as Benigno Aquino III is known
by many, are perhaps convinced of the inferiority of the Philippine
military. But no one is talking about a war. The Philippine government
has plenty of peaceful options in dealing with the Malaysian government
without putting the Tausūg in an undignified situation.
Seeking a long-lasting solution to this conflict is beneficial to many
of us, as the thick layers of animosity and hatred caused by hundreds of
years of coercion and exploitation have already claimed thousands of
lives. Respect for self-determination and the recognition of the
tradition of self-organizing are meaningful ways to start finding peace
and development.
The organizational arrangement of the Tausūg in a sultanate is surely
not perfect; it is characterized by social stratification and an unequal
distribution of wealth. Leaders enjoy the same privileges as corporate
leaders and other beneficiaries of hierarchical institutions. Changing
these hierarchical systems is always a focus of our work and the desire
of many communities aspiring to attain freedom and prosperity. But
asserting rights over indigenous space and autonomy is a radical step
against the hegemony of the nation-state. This is the most important
aspect of the occupation of Sabah.
[1] The contested Spratly Islands in the South China Sea are claimed by
various countries: China, Taiwan, Brunei, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the
Philippines.
[2] Lakan Dula (c. 1503–1575), Rajah Matanda (1480–1572), and Rajah
Sulayman (1558–1575) were precolonial political leaders in the
archipelago that was to become known as the Philippines.