The Philippine Supreme Court threw out on Tuesday a proposed accord to grant minority Muslims expanded autonomy after Christian protests and renewed fighting convinced the government to abandon the deal. >>>>>
This renewed fighting is exactly what was wanted. To label them as Christian protests, instead of Philipino protests shows exactly the direction they are intending this to move toward – a war against Muslims. Philippines is a secular nation. But it is easy to pit each other against religious ideologies in order to safeguard the weak substance of a so-called Western-styled democracy. The U.S. actually has more to gain, contrary to what the article says, if there was conflict in the region. It tends to weaken Philippines own government’s disagreements and overall independence from the U.S., and naturally justifies having more a military, albeit advisor, presence in the Philippines.
Why is it that when Christian-populated East Timor wanted to separate from the democratically elected, majority-Muslim populated Indonesia, it was portrayed as something good in secular newspapers. When Muslim-populated Mindanao wants separation from majority-populated Catholic Philippines, it is not good. The same question can be raised about Chechnya, Palestine, Mauritania, Lebanon, Syria, Algeria and Egypt, amongst other nations — democracy is not factored in by those who champion democracy.
It’s is only used as a pep-rally cheer to bring forth the cause of the powerful. Yes, the powerful seek ‘democracy’, when it is usually a corruption of democratic values and rule of the fundamental laws that gave them the power to begin with.
If those Muslims in Mindanoa were carrying a red, white and blue banner, and had white skin, and carrying crosses and the Bible; then them seeking autonomy would be heard around the world as a legitimate cause….even if they yelled from the top of the lungs, “Give me liberty, or give me death.” Since this isn’t the case, they are mere rebels who should not want autonomy.