Sabah … “of Nations and States” (Part 1)

I usually don't write about “current” controversial issues simply because I wished this corner to share ideas and information, not argue about things which might end up in animosity.  I did write about certain controversial issues in the past, but only after the debates abated and people are more forgiving about opinions contrary to theirs, and are more likely to consider them, if only to agree to disagree.  But I'd like to make an exception of the Sabah affair.

Nations and states.  As I scanned across the landscape of the news reports, blogs, and different fora in the web, I have this lingering suspicion that much of the confusion arise from our failure to disambiguate the words “nation” and “state.”  Let's face it; most of us (including me) usually use the two words interchangeably.  We take them to mean the same thing.  And more often than not, it would not matter.  But in this case, it does, and it matters big, especially when people start shooting at each other, and they are of different “nationalities.”

Let's look at some parallels first.  When Columbus discovered “America,” it was not empty - there were people living there.  Many people call them the “Indian tribes” - groups of Native Americans whose tribe names we use as car or SUV models, aircraft, or military armaments, for some reasons or another (Cherokee, Apache, Comanche, Cheyenne, Sioux), maybe because they were war-like.  But within their culture, they call themselves as "Nations," i.e., the Comanche Nation,  the Navajo Nation, Sioux Nation, etc.  For all intents and purposes, they were nations in the real sense of the world.  They don't exist now except as part of the United States of America, a federal state.

Another parallel we see in that South Korean tele-novela "Jumong."  Sans the romantic dramatic twists a tele-novela could only have, Jumong is, or was, a real person, and the historical backdrop of that TV series is real, Jumong being considered as Korea's first emperor or king, or whatever they call the ruler in those days.  And the “country,” “nation,” or “state” that he ruled, as did others after him, was Goguryeo, the precursor of modern North and South Korea, only larger.  The center of power was Buyeo.  Yet, at present, the bigger portion of ancient Goguryeo is already part of China, while only a third of it became the two Koreas (north or south).  The Goguryeo nation no longer exists - the area belongs to 2 “states.”  But the showing of Jumong so kindled nationalistic sentiments in China that the TV series was banned from being shown there.  Why? … because a “nation” is different from a “state.”

It becomes more complicated when one considers sultanates and sub-states.  Note that before the Philippines became a Republic and Malaysia became a Federation in the last century, different sultanates and Malay states existed, not necessarily along present-day territorial lines.  We were later colonized by Spain, later by the US and Japanese, although many will insist most parts of Mindanao never were.  Malaysia was also partly under Portugal, then the Dutch, and later, the British Empire.  The previous sultanates and unfederated states had their own boundaries and previous trade, cultural, diplomatic interactions between each other, either peacefully or belligerently.  So what happens when some centuries-old agreements or disagreements are invoked? - a big headache.  An unfortunate bloodshed.

Let's hope and pray cooler heads will prevail, and we can see a resolution to this conflict.  I could just imagine the turmoil this world will face if suddenly Malaysia will insist Singapore belongs to them, North Korea will claim part of northern China (which Jumong actually ruled in the 1st century), and the American Indians reclaim their original land from the U.S.A.?  There would be hundreds of similar cases all over the world, some countries even still in a state of war over boundaries.

Take some time to ponder on the words, a “nation” and a “state.”  We can read a lot of dictionaries and search all over the internet for their meanings… many will propose them as synonymous to each other, but a deeper evaluation will reveal that they are not.  And it might be good to note that however we act or react to the present day crisis, should be officially that of the Philippine “state” in relation to the Malaysian “state” and not anything else.

It becomes more complicated than this when we consider the words “ownership” and “jurisdiction.”  (To be continued)