The Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF), a Muslim insurgency group with a history of seeking to

secede from the Philippines, launched an attack recently against Philippine troops in the city of
Zamboanga, west of Mindanao, the Philippines’ largest southern island where Muslim insurgent groups
have been waging wars against the Philippine government. Armed insurgents seized villages and
hostages, shut down schools and shops, and put to a halt business operations that are costing the city
billions of pesos each day since the conflict started. The relatively peaceful state of affairs in Mindanao,
brought about by ongoing peace talk negotiations between the Philippine government and another
splinter group, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), was shattered when the MNLF, feeling excluded
from the bounty that the Philippine government is extending to the MILF, demanded that the Philippine
government honor its previous 1996 peace agreement. MNLF’s leader, Nur Misuari, recently proclaimed
the entire of Mindanao as “Bangsamoro Republik,”[i] in effect, declaring the secessionist movement’s
independence from the Philippines.

The eruption of violence in Mindanao in the midst of the Philippine government’s efforts at brokering
peace is self-fulfilling, however. When the Philippine government, or any government for that matter,
resolves ethnic conflict by favoring one group over the other, any effort towards conflict-resolution is
bound to fail. When it extends group entitlements to ethnic groups based on group rights and group
identity, it sharpens ethnic differences and fuels ethnic wars. When it grants autonomy to secessionist
groups based on the principles of self-determination and cultural separatism, it institutionalizes ethnic
divisions.

Separatist Movements: MNLF and MILF

Nearly one-fourth of the population of the Philippines, about 20 million, live in the southern islands of
Mindanao. Of these, approximately 5 million, comprising at least 13 ethno-linguistic groups, profess
Islam. Despite their differences, they have a common bond in their Islamic faith. Introduced in the
Philippines by Arab traders and Islamic missionaries in 1310, Islam rapidly spread throughout the
archipelago. However, the arrival of the Spaniards in 1565 checked and rolled back its further advance.
The Spanish colonizers never succeeded in subjugating the Muslim natives, although they succeeded in
creating a notion of “otherness,” since majority of the Muslims refused to be converted to Christianity.

The Philippines has been battling Muslim secessionist movements[ii] in the southern part of the country
for over forty years. The Moro National Liberation Front, organized in 1972 by Professor Nur Misuari,
became by far the most important separatist organization in the 1970s and -80s. Its purpose was to
promote a cultural-historical identity that would appeal to the concept of Philippine Muslim nationalism
and would emphasize traditional Muslim political institutions, particularly the sultanates.
Attempts towards peace and reconciliation took place in late 1976, when talks were held between the
Philippine government and the leaders of the MNLF. Under the supervision of the Organization of the
Islamic Conference, an agreement was reached and signed in Tripoli calling for a ceasefire and the
granting of autonomy to Muslim areas, giving rise to the establishment of the Autonomous Region in
Muslim Mindanao under the leadership of Nur Misuari. The ceasefire failed as fighting resumed the
following year. The Muslim rebellion, however, weakened considerably because of internal disputes.

The Moro Islamic Liberation Front Reformist Movement split from the MNLF in 1977. Its leaders
officially changed the title of their organization to the “Moro Islamic Liberation Front” to “underscore
Islam as the rallying point of the Bangsamoro struggle.” In January 1987, the MILF adopted a more
radical position when it refused the government’s offer of autonomy. The MNLF, meanwhile, had agreed
to relinquish its goal of full independence and settled for autonomy.

For years, the Philippine government made several attempts at pacifying the MILF through peace talks.
In 1987, the Philippine government and the MILF met in Malaysia and agreed to hold peace negotiations.
After a series of peace talks held in the past, such efforts have yet to yield results.

At the crux of these peace talks is the demand of the MILF to grant Filipino Muslims the right to self-
determination, to their own Bangsamoro identity and a homeland. Indeed, according to Al Haj Murad
Ebrahim, then chairman of the MILF, the Muslims’ right to self-determination “can be a breakthrough” in
ending “one of the world’s longest-running insurgencies.”[iii]

The group insists that the issue of “ancestral domain” be made the centerpiece principle of the peace
talks, viewing it as key to settling Muslim grievances. In their draft proposal, the MILF argued that all
lands, including natural resources, occupied by Filipino Muslims since time immemorial by cultural bond,
customary law, and historic rights be declared as belonging rightfully to the Bangsamoros.

Philippine Government’s Solution: Autonomy and Cultural Separatism

There seems to be a strong consensus among scholars of Philippine Muslim politics that the only
practical and just solution to the ethnic problem in Mindanao is to grant the Muslim insurgents exclusive
right to their lands based on the principles of self-determination and cultural separatism. Muslim
leaders argue that since their people are of a distinctive minority, differing from the majority in religion,
ways of life, and language, they are entitled to autonomy if not independence. Besides, for all the years
of government neglect and social discrimination they claimed to have suffered in the hands of the
majority, Filipino Muslims think that separatism is the right policy prescription for them. In this, the
Muslim question resembles ethnic conflicts occurring in many parts of the world, wherein leaders of
rebellious ethnic groups demand self-determination on the basis of their historical and cultural
uniqueness.

The Philippine government seems to agree (as governments of other countries facing ethnic wars seem
to do). Its Muslim policy is informed by the same principle, with its attendant perceptions that some
groups are uniquely privileged and others burdened. The 1987 Philippine Constitution itself lends
legitimacy to claims of separateness by cultural groups. Article II, Section 22 recognizes the importance
of preserving cultural groups: “the state recognizes and promotes the rights of indigenous cultural
communities within the framework of national unity and development.” The Constitution further
includes a provision on the creation of autonomous regional governments for geographical areas sharing
common and distinctive historical and cultural heritage (Article X, Sections 15-21).

These provisions have been used as guide to inform and shape the Philippine government’s policy-
making initiatives towards the Muslim problem. In fact, they inform the current peace talk taking place
between the Philippine Government and the MILF. The proposed set of agreements embodied in the
“Framework of Agreement on the Bangsamoro,” include provisions on revenue-generation and wealth-
sharing of natural, mineral, and other resources, 75% of which goes to Bangsamoro and 25% to the
Philippine government. It is estimated that Mindanao has mineral deposits worth $312 billion.[iv]
According to the Office of Presidential Adviser on the Peace Process (OPAPP), the agreement also
includes sections on taxation, other sources of revenue, fund transfers from the central government,
grants and other forms of assistance, contracting of loans and overseas development assistance, natural
resources, and additional fiscal powers. Indeed, the Philippine government’s Chief Negotiator, Miriam
Coronel-Ferrer, argued that these provisions “would fulfill the aspirations for meaningful autonomy for
Muslim Mindanao that was envisioned in the Constitution.[v]

Cultural Separatism and Group Rights Sharpen Ethnic Conflict

Perhaps therein lies the root cause of the problem in the Philippine government’s failure to solve the
Muslim question: through its laws, the government legitimizes and institutionalizes ethnic divisions. It
seems to believe, as most proponents of culturalism do, that ethnic groups, by virtue of their cultural
identity, may justly claim particular and often exclusive entitlements, and, that governments owe them
such entitlements.

On the surface, cultural separatism looks like a reasonable and just policy. However, in many countries
torn by ethnic conflict, cultural separatism seems only to exacerbate the problem. And the proposed
peace talks in Mindanao, premised on the same principle, will not achieve much either.

For one, culturalism is inherently parochial, hence, divisive. Culture -- which is good in itself as all human
beings belong to a culture and are shaped by it -- tends to promote the ethnic and the particular at the
expense of the universal. It cannot see beyond itself and is only self-interested. According to Charles
Kesler, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College, it is unlikely to look outside for solutions
to its problems “much less discern them through the filters of other cultures in light of disinterested
reason.” Culture “cannot be designed or planned because it cannot be thought through to the things
that reason shows it has in common with other cultures and its members have in common with mankind
simply.”[vi] Culturalism is myopic and short-sighted, and any outside attempt at influence or
interference is viewed with suspicion; in other areas, it fuels ethnic wars.

Two, culturalism confers rights upon people as groups and not as individuals. Promoting group rights
cannot serve the interest of the individual as he is not free to exercise his rights apart from his group. It
inculcates and perpetuates a “victimhood mentality,” preventing individuals to break free and map the
directions of their own lives. Also, group rights can only create divided allegiances between the state
and their communities. Consequently, group rights promote group entitlements, but often at the
expense of the common good. Moreover, only the Muslim leadership elites in Mindanao benefit from
these entitlements, amassing wealth at the expense of their constituents, as the region continues to
remain one of the poorest in the Philippines.

Group rights can lead to never-ending problems of factionalism. Given that there are 13 ethno-linguistic
groups within the Muslim group in southern Philippines, what would stop the other groups from making
similar demands for entitlements? This is exactly what is happening in Mindanao right now, with the
MNLF feeling excluded from the government’s entitlement provisions. In short, there is little reason to
expect that solutions grounded on group entitlements will solve much.

Three, culturalism impedes the exercise of civil and religious liberties. Culturalism makes the pursuit of
religion even more contentious as it usually advocates the religion of the dominant culture at the
expense of the religion of the minority. It prevents the free exercise of worship, creating enmity instead
of friendships among members of a political community. In other areas, it breeds radicalism and
religious fanaticism.

Recommendations

Rather, what is needed in order to resolve ethnic conflicts is to promote the common good of all while
upholding the rights of every individual, regardless of his ethnicity, culture, and religion. For the
attainment of genuine peace and resolution of the Muslim problem in Mindanao, the Philippine
government, the Muslim leadership, the insurgent groups, and other stakeholders must act on the
following:

Disarmament. In order to lay down the proper framework for genuine peace in Mindanao, insurgent
groups must disarm. Disarmament is a precondition for effective and resolute peace negotiations.

Strong local governments. Ideally, federalism, which enables regional governments to acquire significant
control of local affairs from the central government, can provide a better arrangement than regional
autonomy that is being negotiated between the Philippine government and Muslim insurgent groups.
Federalism is akin to regional autonomy, but as an autonomy generalized to all provinces and which
makes people equal citizens of the nation and of the province. Unlike federalism, regional autonomy has
an unintended consequence of marginalizing autonomous groups. Inasmuch as the Philippine
government is not a federal form of government, it must strengthen instead its regional and local
governments in a way that they become direct ties of representation and power between the citizens
and the central government.[vii]

Diversified market-economy. A diversified market-economy is a source of prosperity, an opportunity for

people to define their own lives, and an opportunity to advance the community’s economic well-being.
Insurgent activities continue to pose a threat to Mindanao’s security and provide disincentives to
potential investments and trade activities in the region. What Mindanao needs is an infusion of private
investments and more job opportunities for the people. The region should be exempted from the
present area limits to commercial farming that have severely curtailed the establishment of productive
plantations. This should enable the region to attract multinational corporations from neighboring
countries to do business there.

Civic education and community relations. In order to address issues of discrimination and other forms of
social grievance, local governments and community associations must come up with programs that may
help improve community relations such as interfaith dialogues, volunteering programs, and a better
appreciation of local traditions and heritage through civic education and public discourse.