The frustration of the writer quoted above with suggestions the Americans are in league with the MILF (or that the MILF is being armed by the Malaysians, when obviously political and even financial support is plenty of help and there are many AFP members willing to sell arms to the MILF anyway) isn’t about to change the mind of say, Tony Abaya (who says it boils down to the MILF being, in American eyes, more dependable than Christian leaders) or blogger Philippine Politics 04.Uhmmm... no. I never said the Americans were conspiring with the MILF to screw the Philippine gov't or that it was their idea to push for a Bangsamoro state or BJE in return for bases on MILF soil. Conspiracy theories lang yan ng mga elitistang katulad nina Abaya, Teddyboy, Joker at Esposo. Pero susuportahan ng US (including japan and australia) ang aspirations ng MILF. As for the Malaysian angle, i have little knowledge of that. Si Teddy AMboy ang nakakaalam niyan.
Btw, I agree with you about Ibrahim Canana's piece. And I agree with Ibrahim about the stupid conspiracy theories that has helped undermine the peace process.
Senator Joker asks: "Why was US at aborted MOA-AD signing?"
I think malinaw ang dahilan. The US, Australia, Japan and the OIC were there to give their blessings for a new Muslim Mindanao state. You need the support of at least the superpower US to get recognition.
Parang ganyan rin kasi ang nangyari rin sa Kosovo eh:
Russian political commentators believe that the "unilateral" proclamation of Kosovo's independence and its immediate recognition by the US and by the heavyweights of the EU create a precedent for many separatist movements all over the world, from the Basques in Spain to the Uighurs in China, and that multiple conflicts could flare up with new vigour, having received such an impetus.
At least sa atin bilateral. Pero kapag hindi natuloy ang signing ng MOA, baka maging "unilateral" ito. Kapag "unilateral", susuportahan kaya ito ng US?
MORE on the Kosovo Precedent from Irina Filatova back in February 2008:
What pains the Serbs most, of course, is the fact that Kosovo has never been a colony, or a conquered country. It was, indeed, the territory where Serbian statehood came into existence and developed and which was then lost to what originally was an Albanian minority. The Russians support this sentiment: how would the British feel if in 20 or 30 years Windsor, for example, proclaimed its independence on the grounds that the majority of its population was now Muslim and if the US decided to support this claim?
The Americans say that Kosovo is not a precedent, that it is a once-off exception. It is difficult to believe this. If a nation wants to secede and to create it own statehood, there is little what any government can do, except keep it by force. As we know, using force to keep secessionists at bay can go on for centuries, as long as outside major powers do not intervene, and such an intervention seems unlikely elsewhere in Europe at present. The independence of Kosovo is useful to the US in order to show the world that America is not anti-Muslim, merely anti-rogue states, some of which happen to be Muslim - and because it thinks that Nato and its peacekeepers would control the situation in an independent Kosovo better than it could until now. But they would not support the Basques or the Walloons, or the Kurds, let alone the Transdnestrians.
Nor would they support the Abkhasians and the South Ossetians, of course. On the other hand, if Russia decided to recognise these break-away republics, and if Georgia decided to oppose this (which it would) then the Americans would, of course, support Georgia, and Russia might, indeed, face a conflict with the west.
A conflict where russia is winning by the way.