Ethnic Tensions in the Philippines and Elsewhere

For years the Philippines has battled against radical Islamic insurgencies in Mindanao, and the recent bombings have further exacerbated the ethnic tensions behind this identity-based conflict.  At the same time, China is experiencing similar problems with their ethnic minorities.  For today’s post, we will draw on the expertise of Priscilla Tacujan, who holds a PhD in Political Philosophy from Claremont University, to explain why self-determination may look reasonable on the surface, but can actually create ethnic tensions in a society:

From the very beginning of the crafting of the Mindanao policy, I had questioned the wisdom behind the principles that informed the policy.  In an article of mine, published by the Liberty Institute, I laid out my arguments questioning whether self-determination and cultural separatism would solve the Muslim conflict in Philippine politics.  The issue of “ancestoral domain,” or land rights based on historic claims, became the centerpiece principle of the peace talks, viewing it as key to settling Muslim grievances against Christian settlers.  The insurgency groups have 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 rightfully belonging to them.

This issue of land rights based on historic claims seems to have played out in the recent ethnic tension that erupted into violent confrontations between the Han Chinese and the Ughurs in Urumqi, China, where the Ughurs, a Turkish speaking, mostly Muslim people, have lived for centuries.  According to this WSJ article, many of the Ughurs have resented the influx of the Hans who have been migrating in large numbers to the region in search of economic opportunities.

There seems to be a strong consensus among scholars of ethnic politics that the only practical and just solution to ethnic problems is to grant the aggrieved exclusive right to these lands based on the principles of self-determination and cultural seperatism.  In the Philippines, Muslim leaders argue that since their people are of a distinctive minority, differing from the majority in religion, way of life and language, they are entitled to autonomy if not independence.

In many countries torn by ethnic conflict, self-determination based on ethnicity, race, and religion seem only to exacerbate the problem.  The reason is that these factors, in fact, sharpen group differences; they lead to social claims and entitlements based on group rights.  In the long run, they fuel ethnic wars.  Take a look at the problem of sectarianism that continues to plague Iraq.

This kind of thinking lumps people into groups and categories rather than as individuals who are free to exercise their rights apart from their group and are capable of mapping out the directions of their lives.

For any conflict resolution that involves ethnic conflict, right principles must inform it.  We have to think in these terms, for as Alex Magno, a professor of political science at the University of the Philippines and founder of the Foundation for Economic Freedom, astutely puts it “The situation in China’s northeast, as in southern Thailand and Mindanao, is made particularly precarious by the fact that the marginalized communities are Islamic.  These minority communities become fertile grounds for fundamentalist Islamic agitation.  The economic marginalization expresses itself in war along religious lines.”

source: Atlas Network