The aftermath of the Cold War was a period of broad ideological revolutions, territorial secessions and political separatism; a hemorrhage that could be seen swelling from Chechnya to the Taliban.
As we have seen, new states and governments have been recently formed out of the ashes of demolished powers such as, let us say, the USSR. However, it does not mean that after the fall of Communism did only the enslaved communities begin to awake, but rather, during the time that imperialism was dying, “states within the states” took the opportunity to rise up and culminate the war for independence they had been waging silently for so long.
And when speaking of separations, the Philippines is not above the target.
Finding the Homeland
The Bangsa Moro, or the “Moro Homeland” has been under the same struggles but in different grounds. Being the major cause of hostilities in the archipelago for decades, their persistent drive accounts for the massive rate of terrorism and widespread extremism. Moro history can be traced back into five centuries of successive resistance against foreign intruders. And all except the Japanese had in fact failed to colonize a single area in Mindanao, which further consecrated the ideals of an independent Moro state.
And the question here is for what reason? It is through our respect to the Muslim ownership of Mindanao that is much older than the coming of the Spaniards and the establishment of our first ceremonial government. It is why in 1990 we have given a certain region Muslim autonomy. Fighting for such a cause is needless, because firstly the government and the Christian Filipinos did not commit a single act of racism against our Muslim brethren, and not even did we curtail them of their rights. It saddens me that the people whom you want to unite with in order to build and develop your history-smitten country is trying to break up loose from your national aims.
The Great Wave
During the period of full-blown liberalism and the weakening of suzerainty there is a massive call of separatism in different countries. Perhaps most of them have a humanitarian crisis which prompted their struggle that they resorted into the most desperate means of achieving it, including extortionism and terrorism. I am not against their causes if their manners are far from disrupting peace and evoking worldwide chaos and armed conflicts which, as is apparent today, spreading into our country.
Tibet’s cause is most justified in a way that it experienced the most brutal violations to human rights. Since the 11th century it has resisted conquerors including the Mongols, yet was always under strain and fear from the giants that beleaguered the little Himalayan territory.
Residents walk past overturned cars and burning shops in Barkhor Square in front of the 1400-years old Jokhand Temple, a world heritage site, in central Lhasa, Tibet March 14, 2008.
(REUTERS/Stringer)
Tibet’s long-drawn struggle began when China asserted its suzerainty in 1904 in reaction to the British occupation of Lhasa, Tibet’s capital. In fact, China had an informal rule in Tibet for over 300 years, and during those times the Buddhist monks and its religious head, the Dalai Lama had been put to miserable odds, irreverence and repeated flights; first to Mongolia, afterwards to Nepal and then to India. Temples and monasteries were burned and the educational system was altered into secularism. The government installed by the Chinese in Lhasa was even restricted to engage to foreign agreements without permission from the latter. These were the grave circumstances which urged the necessity of breaking loose from Chinese intervention.
Also, Kosovo had been over-burdened by western imperialism. Is suffered in the hands of the Ottoman, Serbia and Yugoslavia and has been subject to a myriad of restrictions in human rights, education, mass media and even ethnic culture. This sparked violence within Kosovo and the surrounding regions that in the late 1990s, UN and NATO found it necessary to intervene. The succeeding unrest in Kosovo paved the way into war. By its end on June 10, 1999 it left thousands of Albanian civilians killed and more than 500,000 people displaced. It led to the determination of Kosovo’s final status and after several revisions, a resolution of supervised independence was submitted to the United Nations Security Council.
Yet on February 17 this year, the Parliament of Kosovo declared full independence, a move which is recognized by a few nations at present.
The position in International Politics
The Stimson doctrine of international recognition acknowledges not the existence of “illegal powers,” or those formed by forceful (especially violent) methods. In contrast to this, belligerent states, or those whose desire is to establish their territory as a self-governing nation through hostile means, are somehow equal in rights but not recognized by the international community as sovereign powers. A famous example to this was Britain’s recognition of the Confederate States of America as a belligerent entity during the first phase of the American Civil War. Under this category we can also classify the Bangsa Moro.
In Tibet and Kosovo the drive for independence is pressured by continuing crisis on human rights, state discrimination and suzerainty while in the Moro Homeland it is a relief to say that those did not became the compelling forces to the Bangsa’s separatist tendencies (discrimination, if ever, is minimal and Moro autonomy solved the questions in sovereignty). Although armed conflicts are recurrent the fact is that repeated government correspondence (however frustrated) and avoidance of human rights violations has rendered an effect preventing mass separatism.
Furthermore, despite breaches in negotiations and agreements between the national government and the rebel leadership time and time again, diplomatic relations are generally productive (but still it is not enough to say it is triumphant). Nevertheless, this way national integrity is preserved.
Join The Community