March 4, 2013
Intruders use History to make History
by Farish A. Noor @http://www.nst.com.my
COMPLICATED: It’s a dangerous path to follow when groups make claims to territories based on centuries-old claims
THE stand-off in Lahad Datu has reached a violent peak and is not over yet. From day one, we were confronted with a complicated situation to handle, for this was not an attack by another country, but rather an intrusion into the territory of one country by citizens of another, who argued that they had a historical basis to justify their actions.
For academics, this aspect of the event was the most complex, namely the way in which history has been brought into play by those who claim that they have a right to Sabah.
This was an instance when history was blatantly marshalled to the aid of politics, and where historical claims were being used to further political claims in the present.
Many historians would insist that this is a dangerous path to follow, for the simple reason that it leads to an infinite regress that cannot bring either side to a happy resolution. Why?
The reason is simple enough: when anyone reads history with the intention of excavating details to serve their own agendas and to prove their point, another person or interested party can do the same, too.
History is a narrative without a full stop, in the sense that history is constantly being written as we speak and is constantly being revised and appraised, too.
For someone to claim to have rights over Sabah on account of documents in his possession is one thing, but let us not forget that centuries before that, Sabah and Sarawak also came under the dominion of an even older kingdom, namely Brunei.
And reading of records from the 16th century and earlier will show that it was Brunei that held sway across the northern coast of Borneo.
Likewise, the patchy and convoluted history of Southeast Asia would show us that much of the region has been contested in the past: Singapore was part of Johor, while the Siamese kingdom once held power over Kelantan, Kedah and Terengganu. But does this mean that Malaysia can claim Singapore? Or that Thailand can claim the northern half of Peninsular Malaysia? Or that Brunei can claim Sarawak and Sabah? Of course not.
The reason why the modern-day postcolonial states of Southeast Asia do not embark on such claims is that they are all nation-states that behave as responsible actors on the stage of international politics.
States are expected to behave responsibly, and to abide by certain norms of conduct. Walking into a neighbouring country and claiming territory is not an example of what “responsible conduct” means, and when Iraq did that to Kuwait, the entire international community, including all the states of Southeast Asia condemned it, and rightfully so.
What complicated matters in Sabah is that those who have made the claims on Sabah were not representative of the government and people of the Philippines. (Indeed, it could be said that they were an embarrassment.)
The question is how does a state, in this case Malaysia, deal with non-state actors such as those who entered Lahad Datu? Here is where diplomacy on the high and low level comes in: to work with the Philippine government to end this impasse that involves some of their citizens behaving in a manner that is jeopardising the good bilateral relations Malaysia and Philippines enjoys, notably after Malaysia’s role in helping to bring about the peace deal to the restive south of the Philippines.
Malaysian would be wise to be wary of such claims in the future. For there is nothing to prevent others from making similar claims, regardless of the damage they do to themselves and to the bilateral ties between the two countries.
In the long run, however, all the states of Southeast Asia have to realise that whether we like it or not, we live in an age of nation-states.
Nation-states may be clumsy, complicated objects; but they are in fact the only tools we have to deal with the real-life problems and challenges of governance today. But nation-states are also far more responsible when it comes to respecting borders, policing frontiers and dealing with other states.
Nation states must and will continue to respect and abide by internationally-recognised rules and norms, including the law of boundaries. It would be hopeless for us to dwell on the past and lament the loss of historical standing.
For as was mentioned earlier, almost every country in ASEAN can go about making historical claims if they wanted to. But this will not bring us any closer to ASEAN integration, and may instead fuel feelings of resentment and hyper-nationalist pride instead.
In this decade to come, all the countries of ASEAN will have to deal with the real challenge of waning American power and the rising economic clout of China in our region.
This is a real issue that begs for real answers, and that is what ASEAN should be focusing on. For the sake of the region and the future generation of ASEAN citizens, ASEAN should take the present arrangement of nation-states as a given, and move on. History may remind us of mistakes and errors of the past, but it will not and cannot provide a magic pill to solve our existential angst of today.