“Should we have the Bangsamoro in Mindanao?

Government:

Frame/Introduction:

At its core, the Bangsamoro agreement is one that is born out of diplomacy and fifteen years
worth of peace talks. It is one born of the mutual desire of both parties to move on from conflict
and work towards equal representation and regional development.

Burden of proof: It is not our burden in this debate to show that the Bangsamoro is perfect, it is
simply to prove that the agreement is the best possible one given the situation.

In line with this, we present three main arguments, namely:

1. Historical Mandate
2. Self Determination

Second speaker would extend our arguments by explaining how:

3. It is an amicable solution that would only benefit both sides

Before we go into our arguments, let us look into some definitions.

Definitions:
Firstly, the Bangsamoro. The Bangsamoro would be a new state to be governed by the moro
people. Under it, national government would still retain control over matters such as defense,
monetary policy (including exchange policy), citizenship, and foreign policy. Sharia law would
only be applied to civil cases amongst Muslims, and not criminal ones. As such, it remains a
secular state.

When we say the moro people, it refers to the ethnically indigenous group of Muslims in the
region.

--------
On to the arguments:
Our first argument would be the historical mandate that established this nation. Historically, if we
trace back the roots of Philippine history and this conflict, the Philippines was never really fully
conquered by one single nation. Even when the bulk of it was controlled by the Spaniards for
more than three whole centuries, the fact is that the Muslim people were never really taken into
account. In fact, the treaty of paris in 1898 is widely considered controversial solely because
of the fact that when the Philippines in its entirety was handed to the America. This was amidst
the reality that the Spaniards never really had any real control over the Visayas and Mindanao
regions. Never in Philippine history have they wholeheartedly concede their identity and be part
of something they know they are not. So, in essence, the moro people never really agreed to
being part of this nation in the first place. Even when we’ve been under American control, they
continually opposed their conquerors and this resistance to be under another nation is evident
even up to now -- where these people have shown disinterest in being fully under the PH nation.
This leads to our second argument.

Our second argument is the idea of self determination. By principle, as a democracy, the
Philippine government believes in equal representation of the people. As such, people have
the right to choose who has sovereignty over them. Just because we are all bound by the same
social construct of the national borders, doesn’t mean that we necessarily live life the same
way. This includes our national identity. People have the right to be be governed under their
collective identity as a people. This is reinforced by the fact that the United Nations General
Assembly, in multiple instances, have supported this principle. (Just in case proof is requested):

Article 55 of the United Nations charter, which provides that the world
body shall create “conditions of stability and well-being which are
necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on
respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples
. . .”
• General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, which states
that, “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that
right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development.”
• Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR), and repeated in Article 1 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which makes this statement: “All
peoples have the right of self-determination, including the right to
determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social
and cultural development.”

It is unjustifiable to take this freedom away from people -- if you think about it, it is akin to going
back to the era of colonizers where you take a completely different set of people and force them
under your own. Even if you act as a benevolent being that rules them for “their own good”, the
psychological implications of it on the people is weighs far more than the economic good that it
can bring. There is a reason why even though poor African countries are in dire need of help,
you don’t see countries trying to instill their own government there under the notion of making
them richer. The choices and the freedom to make those choices are worth more than what they
know -- it is unfair to make them indebted to a nation that they do not feel like a part of. Again,
in principle, governments don’t have the right to demand the wealth nor the freedom of this
“nation” simply as a result of an arbitrary annexation made in the past.

BUT EVEN IF, this past annexation was somehow made valid for whatever reason doesn’t
change the fact that these people, under a collective identity, are fighting for a unified state run
by their own ideologies. This alone proves that there is an population of people within the region
who have this separate sense of identity.
Furthermore, we tell you that it is part of human nature is the sense of freedom -- and along
with this notion of freedom is the idea of wanting to hold your destiny in your hands. Its practical
implications would include policies based on culture by the people who have actually lived
enough under that collective identity. People want to be under, and represented, by the ones
who are actually part of them -- whether by cultural tradition or religious similitude.

In government side, we fight for these people’s rights to the freedom of gaining their own
sense of identity. We fight for the equal representation of the people as a fundamental idea of
democracy. We fight for the millions of voices left unheard amidst centuries worth of conflict. We
fight to end this senseless violence. We beg to propose.

---

In our first two arguments, we have told you why it is right and justifiable to support the
bangsamoro. Next we are going to say why, practically, this is the best solution that we have.
Our third argument is that it leads to the best overall regional development. This agreement is
an amicable one that would only lead to them being better off both economically and politically.
What we have seen for the last fifteen years that are primarily of diplomacy between the
government and the moro people. For these people, all they want is a government that actually
understands them that ultimately leads to their development as people. When a you have a
government that has this equal representation and development in mind, it is absurd to think
that these extremist sectarian groups would lead to warlords and violence in the region. Instead,
what you see is mutual cooperation between the their people and a government that they trust.
This kind of trust is one that is essential for a government to be able to function properly --
which is also why democracies aim for transparency and why corruption is such a huge issue in
politics.

On the other hand, the converse of this is that you are practically throwing away fifteen years
worth of peace talks. This would mean that instead of reaching a resolution or middle ground
that both parties are able to acquiesce to, what happens is that you are reinstating the tension
between these sects and the national government. You risk various groups such as the MNLF
and the Abu Sayyaf resorting to terrorism for their cause. We have to understand that this is
not a conflict that is purely religious in nature. In the Philippine context, you don’t see people
killing each other under the grounds that they have different religious beliefs. An example that
proves this is that when the Zamboanga massacre happened, people were actually united
in condemning the extremist Muslims and exclaiming that that was not a religious conflict. In
recent times, we see the MNLF even condemning the actions of the ISIS which religion as their
reason for inhumane acts. However, what does create the violence is this distrust of the very
government that supposedly works for them -- whether through corruption or whatnots. In this
case, the mutual distrust between these two parties have the potential to bring more harm than
good. Should you be coerced into being under the government you don’t believe in, this harm
only grows as the people learn to resent the very people who work for them. Finally, instead of
spending more resources on a war you can not win, we can instead work towards rehabilitating
and moving forward from a conflict that once was.

*It is actually a win-win for the people because they’ll still have a passport that makes the PH
citizens as well as making it easier for them to travel to Muslim states.

*they might say that we are rewarding violence, but it is exactly the opposite. we are not only
rewarding the route of peace instead of violence, but we are also preventing another pointless
conflict that would result into violence.

If they bring up the ARMM:

talk about how the ARMM failed because they weren’t given enough power in the first place
anyway. research more on this

source:
http://www.opapp.gov.ph/resources/comprehensive-agreement-bangsamoro
http://library.upmin.edu.ph/philmin/bangsamoro/IBS%20Occasional%20Paper%202008-03%20-%20Lingga.pdf