With regard to low-tide elevations, the Court, after noting that international
treaty law was silent on the question whether those elevations should be
regarded as “territory”, found that low-tide elevations situated in the
overlapping area of the territorial seas of both States could not be taken into
consideration for the purposes of drawing the equidistance line. That was true
of Fasht ad Dibal, which both Parties regarded as a low-tide elevation. The
Court then considered whether there were any special circumstances which
made it necessary to adjust the equidistance line in order to obtain an
equitable result. It found that there were such circumstances which justified
choosing a delimitation line passing on the one hand between Fasht al Azm
and Qit’at ash Shajarah and, on the other, between Qit’at Jaradah and Fasht ad
Dibal.
Bahrain–Qatar
In 2001, the International Court of Justice resolved a long-standing maritime
dispute between Bahrain and Qatar. In addition to establishing an all-purpose
maritime boundary, the Judgment also resolved sovereignty disputes over
several islands. The Court found the territory of Zubarah, Janan Island, and the
low-tide elevation of Fasht ad Dibal to be Qatar’s, while the Hawar Islands and
Qit’at Jaradah Island pertained to Bahrain.
[1] KESULTANAN SULU MASIH SAHIH ?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Memahami Tuntutan Filipina Ke Atas Sabah dan Tuntutan Kesultanan Sulu Ke Atas Sebahagian Negeri Sabah)
RAMAI pihak berpendapat bahawa Kesultanan Sulu telah termansuh. Benarkah demikian?
Kami mengajak para pembaca sama-sama meneliti dengan berkongsi beberapa fakta untuk mengenalpasti, adakah
institusi Kesultanan Sulu itu telah termansuh atau sebaliknya.
Fakta jelas menunjukkan bahawa pihak Sepanyol dan Amerika tidak pernah menjajah Wilayah Kesultanan Sulu
secara mutlak.
Jika dirujuk kembali kepada beberapa catatan oleh para ahli sejarah dan catatan perjanjian-perjanjian, sememangnya
tiada "Bukti" jelas yang boleh menyatakan secara "Mutlak" bahawa institusi Kesultanan Sulu telah berakhir atau
termansuh.
Berikut kami senaraikan beberapa fakta untuk dikongsi bersama para pembaca sekalian.
1] Perjanjian Paris; 1898
Merujuk kepada "Perjanjian Paris" (The Treaty of Paris; 1898) di antara pihak Sepanyol dan Amerika pada 1898
dalam Artikel III, dengan jelas menyatakan, bahawa wilayah yang perlu diserahkan oleh pihak Sepanyol kepada pihak
Amerika adalah dari wilayah Luzon sehingga wilayah Visayas sahaja.
Ini telah membuktikan bahawa wilayah Mindanao dan Sulu adalah wilayah yang tidak termasuk dalam penyerahan
itu. Maka wilayah Mindanao dan Sulu tetap berstatus sebagai wilayah yang merdeka.[1]
...
2] Perjanjian Bates; 1899
Rujukan dari buku tulisan Peter Gordon Gowing, dalam bukunya "Mandate in Moroland", mukasurat 348-349, dalam
Perjanjian Kiram-Bates Treaty tahun 1899, iaitu pada Artikel III, bahawasanya - "Hak Sultan Sulu, Rakyat Sulu, Agama
dan Tradisi mereka mestilah dihormati. Sultan masih dianggap sebagai Ketua Institusi Kesultanan Sulu terhadap
rakyat Sulu".
Terbukti tiada pernyataan akan "Pemansuhan" ke atas institusi Kesultanan Sulu itu di sini.[2]
...
3] Perjanjian Carpenter; 1915
Dalam Perjanjian Carpenter 1915, dalam buku yang sama, iaitu pada mukasurat 352-353, kenyataan di dalam
perjanjian itu adalah hanya sebagai Penghadan Kuasa Sultan Sulu (Limitation of powers), dan bukan pemansuhan
institusi Kesultanan Sulu.
Kerana dalam perjanjian itu dinyatakan juga, bahawa Sultan Sulu masih bertindak sebagai Ketua Negara, Ketua
Agama dan masih berkuasa ke atas rakyatnya, rakyat Sulu.
...
4] Filipina Tidak Pernah Memiliki
KeDaulatan Ke Atas Sulu :
Dari catatan Prof. Nicholas Tarling pula, dalam bukunya "Sulu And Sabah" pada mukasurat 328, yang merujuk kepada
Memorandum 20hb September 1937, Presiden Manuel L.Quezon hanyalah bermaksud untuk "Tidak Mengiktiraf"
(Non-Recognition) mana-mana penyambung kepada Sultan Jamalul-Kiram-II (Membawa maksud, akan tiada
pengiktirafan kepada sesiapa pun penyambung dari Keluarga Kiram khasnya atau Keluarga Pewaris Pertama amnya.
Keluarga Pewaris Kedua, tidaklah terlibat malah terkecuali di dalam perkara ini).
Juga tiada pernyataan tentang pemansuhan ke atas institusi Kesultanan Sulu.
...
5] Amerika Hanya Sebagai
Pentadbir Dan Pelindung :
Penguasaan pihak Amerika di Sulu dan Mindanao adalah selaku Pentadbir dan Pelindung (Administrator and
Proctorate) sahaja. Sepertimana pihak British yang menjadi pentadbir dan pelindung kepada wilayah Borneo Utara
selepas Perjanjian Pajakan.
...
6] Perjanjian Pajakan Wilayah
Borneo Utara; 1878
Juga dengan termeterainya Perjanjian Pajakan Wilayah Borneo Utara pada tahun 1878, tidak membawa maksud akan
terjadinya "Pemansuhan" institusi Kesultanan Sulu.
Ini kerana, kesahihan (Validation) ke atas perjanjian itu akan terus berlaku selagi pihak Kesultanan Sulu yang
bertindak sebagai tuan punya tanah (Dinyatakan sebagai pewaris dan penyambung kepada Kesultanan Sulu) terus
wujud bersama dengan pihak yang menyewa (Syarikat British) keatas wilayah Borneo Utara tersebut.
Jika dikatakan bahawa institusi Kesultanan Sulu itu telah termansuh, maka secara otomatiknya, tiadalah pula wujud
perjanjian pajakan itu. Maka, perjanjian itu pula bolehlah dianggap terbatal.
Ini membawa maksud,
"Tiada Kesultanan Sulu maka tiada Perjanjian Pajakan, tiada Pembayaran Sewaan tentunya tiada apa-apa lagi
penguasaan oleh pihak lain ke atas wilayah Borneo Utara. Maka wilayah itu perlu dikembalikan kepada pemilik
asalnya iaitu Sultan Sulu".
...
7] Tuntutan Filipina Ke Atas Sabah
Tidak Sah Kerana KeSultanan Sulu
Dan Keseluruhan Pulau Mindanao
Tidak Pernah Di Bawah Perintah
Kerajaan Filipina :
Merujuk kepada buku tulisan Mohd. Ariff Bin Dato Hj. Othman dalam bukunya "Tuntutan Filipina terhadap Sabah Implikasi dari segi sejarah, Undang-undang dan Politik", iaitu pada mukasurat 52-53,[3]
“Bagaimanapun dengan menanda
tangani suatu perjanjian yang
berasingan dengan kerajaan British
tanpa salah seorang daripada Sultan
itu sebagai satu pihak, Syarikat
(BNBC) ini nampaknya telah bertindak
di luar syarat (Ultra vires) konsesi
yang asal. Jadi perjanjian tersebut
boleh dianggap sebagai “Void ab
initio” (Terbatal sejak mula)".
...
8] Beberapa Perjanjian dan Konvensyen Sempadan yang ditandatangani oleh pihak United Kingdom, Belanda dan
pihak Amerika pada tahun 1898, 1915 dan 1930 adalah sebagai perjanjian lingkungan pengaruh mereka ke atas
wilayah-wilayah tertentu dalam melakukan urusan perdagangan, dan bukan sebagai perjanjian penguasaan
penjajahan.
Semua perjanjian dan konvensyen itu tiada satu pun yang boleh dirujuk sebagai sebarang penyataan untuk
"Memansuhkan" institusi Kesultanan Sulu.
...
Maka, jelaslah semua fakta di atas telah dapat menerangkan dengan sejelas-jelasnya bahawa, institusi Kesultanan
Sulu tidaklah pernah sama sekali "Termansuh".
Maka status Wilayah Kesultanan Sulu sememangnya sehingga kini adalah tetap berstatus "Merdeka dan Berdaulat".
Penguasaan Kerajaan Filipina ke atas Wilayah Sulu dan Mindanao sehingga kini adalah "TIDAK SAH" dari segi
undang-undang antarabangsa.
Maka bagaimanakah kita sebagai orang yang memahami perkara ini menyatakan bahawa Kesultanan Sulu telah
termansuh lantaran itu kita bersetuju pula melabelkan rakyat Sulu keseluruhannya sebagai rakyat Filipina?
Blog Rasmi Asreemoro
Ahad, 14 September 2008
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nota kaki:
1] "Sepanyol tidaklah berjaya menakluk
atau menundukkan orang-orang yang
mereka gelar Moro itu, sesungguhnya
mereka (Moro) adalah orang-orang
yang merdeka"
Ruj: New Encyclopedia Britannica
Vol. II, Copyright 1989, p. 381.
2] Inilah yang dimaksudkan oleh Prof.
Datu Emmanuel D. Mangubat
"… Since Sulu Archipelago until
today that is owned the Royal
Sultanate of Sulu and part North
Borneo remains an independent
and sovereign state because this
ancient kingdom was not abolished
by any law of treaty, and their sultan
did not abdicate their throne, …"
Ruj: Zamboanga Today, Thursday,
June 22, 2006, m.s. 11
(Bato-Bato Sa Langit).
3] Mohd Ariff Bin Dato' Hj Othman
(bekas Hakim Mahkamah Tinggi
di Jabatan Peguam Negara Kuala
Lumpur), tajuk bukunya seperti
yang kami sebutkan di atas telah
diterbitkan oleh Dewan Bahasa
dan Pustaka (DBP) pada 1988.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[2] The BATES TREATY; 1899
Written by Madge Kho.
- edited by Roujin d'Umi
The SULU SULTANATE against the US :
(The author thanks Ernie Garcia, former director of ABS/CBN in the Philippines, and Jim Kaplan for their editorial
comments.)
A relatively unknown but significant detail in the Philippine history is the Bates Treaty, signed between the U.S. and
the Sultanate of Sulu on August 20, 1899.
This article looks into the background of that treaty and its consequences.
The Filipinos had been waging their War of Independence from Spain when the U.S. "won" the Spanish-American War
in the battle of Manila Bay. Despite the opposition of anti-imperialist forces, the U.S. took possession of the
Philippines.
Disappointed by and bitter about this unexpected and unforeseen move by the country he had considered an ally,
Filipino General Emilio Aguinaldo then turned the war into the Philippine American War. Now labeling the ongoing
independence war an "insurrection," the U.S. proceeded to establish control of the Philippine Islands through force.
Filipino forces were increasing in the north and becoming a growing concern of the U.S. military. In order to
concentrate its limited forces in the north, and to hold at bay the Moro resistance to its colonization in the Sulu
Archipelago, the United States resorted to the device of a treaty.
Known as the Bates Treaty, it was the first step towards the dissolution of Moro (Muslim population of the southern
Philippines) sovereignty and the dismantling of the Sulu Sultanate.
The Bates Treaty had promised to uphold mutual respect between the U.S. and the Sultanate of Sulu, to respect Moro
autonomy, and to not give or sell Sulu or any part of it to any other nation. In addition, under this treaty the Sultan
and his Datus (tribal chiefs) were to receive monthly payments in return for flying the American flag and for allowing
the U.S. the right to occupy lands on the islands.
A year prior, in December 1898, and with the Tausug (people of Jolo and neighboring islands) unaware that they
were among the pawn peoples whose fates were being decided at a table thousands of miles away, the "Treaty of
Paris" was signed, which included their beloved string of islands.
[The Treaty of Paris;
December 1898]
[In the Treaty of Paris, Spain ceded Cuba, Puerto Rico and Guam to the U.S.; and for $20 million the entire Philippines.
Included in this cession were the territories of Mindanao and Sulu, which actually had not been in full Spanish
control.
About two years later, on November 7, 1900, the U.S. paid an additional $100,000 to Spain to include in the 1898
cession the Sulu islands stretching as far west as Sibutu and Cagayan de Sulu.]
After their defeat by the U.S., the Spaniards turned over a garrison on the island of Siasi, southwest of Jolo, to the
Sultan, who personally went from his seat in Maimbung on the island of Jolo to Siasi to oversee the transfer.
It was not until May 1899 that the U.S. sent troops to take over the Spanish fort in Jolo. The Americans had not been
able to get troops to Jolo sooner because, as General. E.S. Otis wrote to Admiral Dewey on May 14, 1899, they could
not afford to send any troops outside the Luzon area.
The fighting in Luzon was peaking at this time. In the south, the Filipino revolutionary forces had already taken over
from the Spaniards a fort in Zamboanga at the southern tip of the island of Mindanao. General Otis estimated it would
require 2,000 men to retake the Zamboanga fort.
The Spanish fort in the town of Jolo was much smaller and, he surmised, would require only 600 men for its defense
after the Spaniards left. "[It] would be a good scheme to send the garries to Jolo immediately, or the Moros would
destroy the fortifications and guns and turn them upon us when we appear."
So, U.S. troops were immediately sent to Jolo. It was a timely move. The Moros, as he feared, could easily have taken
over the fort from the Spaniards. The Sultan had a standing army of 26,000 men.
When the Americans arrived in Jolo, they told Sultan Jamalul Kiram II, the sultan of Sulu, that the U.S. had taken over
the affairs of Spain and asked the Sultan to recognize the U.S. in the place of Spain, and honor the 1878 provisions of
the treaty, which the Sultan had signed with Spain. But the Sultan refused, stating that the U.S. was a different entity
and that the U.S. should enter into a new treaty with the Sultanate.
The Spanish Treaty of Peace, signed on July 22, 1878, was the last one signed by the Sultan during the Spanish
occupation of the town of Jolo. The treaty had allowed Spain to set up a small garrison, covering about 15 acres, in the
town of Jolo. Outside the wall, the Sultan still ruled.
Scholars fluent in both Spanish and Arabic found the treaty to have translation flaws, which would have implications
in the 1898 cession of the Philippine Islands to the U.S.
The Spanish version states that Spain had sovereignty over Sulu, whereas the Tausug version describes a
protectorate relationship rather than a dependency of Spain. The treaty says that the customs, laws, and religion of
the Moros would not be subjected to Spanish jurisdiction. It made Jolo a protectorate of Spain.
This treaty also provided the Sultan and his Dhatus monthly payments of 250-1500 Mexican pesos.
The Sultan had the mistaken impression that the agreement with the Spaniards would be similar to the one he signed
six months earlier with the British North Borneo Chartered Company, which paid him $5,000 annually for the use of
his North Borneo territories (now Sabah).
(The Philippines, under President Diosdado Macapagal in the 1960s, tried to reclaim Sabah in the world court. This
continues to be a source of irritation between the Philippine and Malaysian governments.)
In place of the Spanish treaty, the Sultan presented Brig. General John Bates with a 16-point proposal. The proposal
allowed the U.S. to fly its flag side by side with the Sultanate's and required the U.S. to continue monthly payments to
the Sultan and his Datus.
The U.S. was not to occupy any of the land without the permission of the sultan. The sultan's proposal was rejected by
Bates, because it did not acknowledge U.S. sovereignty.
Bates then countered with his 15-point proposal, which included the recognition of U.S. sovereignty over Sulu and its
dependencies, the guarantee of non-interference with Moro religion and customs and a pledge that the "U.S. will not
sell the island of Jolo or any other island of the Sulu Archipelago to any foreign nation without the consent of the
Sultan."
The sultan resisted Bates's offer for several months, but he could not get unanimous support from his "ruma bichara"
(ruling council) to press for his demands to the Americans. Because of this internal dissension, led by his own prime
minister and adviser Hadji Butu and two of his top ranking datus, Datu Jolkanairn and Datu Kalbi, the sultan on
August 20, 1899 conceded to the Americans.
The treaty terms were much more favorable to the U.S. than what the Spanish treaty provided. According to Sixto
Orosa, "The people did not wish to come under American sovereignty; but Hadji Butu recognizing the folly of armed
resistance, exerted all his influence to prevent another useless and bloody war."
Hadji Butu and his son, Hadji Gulamu Rasul would later become favorites of northern Filipinos for opposing the
Sultan’s agama court and for favoring integration of Moros into the Philippine republic.
By this time, the Sultanate was financially drained and weakened. From1830 when Spain cut off the lucrative ManilaJolo trade, because it felt threatened by the Sultan’s friendly relations with other European powers like Germany,
France and Great Britain, it had to fight Spain’s unrelenting attacks to subjugate it.
Class differences was also beginning to tear at the seams of the monarchy. The Sultan never gave up his scheming
against the U.S. despite his datus’ friendliness to the Americans.
John Bass of Harper’s Weekly reported that the Sultan was importing a large cache of rifles and ammunition
"evidently to maintain his sovereignty." This would later be borne out by a series of cotta (bunker or trench) wars
against the Americans by the Sultan’s subjects.
This might not seem plausible as the Sultan had denied any knowledge of his subject’s doings when the U.S. accused
him of promoting an insurrection against the U.S.
Whether the Bates treaty made a difference in later years, it is worth mentioning that there was a very critical
translation error from English to Tausug. The word sovereignty was not used anywhere in the Tausug version.
Article I of the Treaty in the Tausug version states "The support, aid, and protection of the Jolo Island and Archipelago
are in the American nation," whereas the English version read "The sovereignty of the United States over the whole
Archipelago of Jolo and its dependencies is declared and acknowledged."
Najeeb Saleeby, an American of Lebanese descent who was assigned to Mindanao and Sulu, caught the translation
flaws and charged Charlie Schuck, son of a German businessman, for deliberately mistranslating the Treaty. Schuck
was acquitted of all legal charges.
Whether mistranslated, the wording of the treaty provided the justification for the U.S. decision to incorporate the
Sulu Archipelago into the Philippine state in 1946.
The Bates Treaty did not last very long. After the U.S. had completed its goal of suppressing the resistance in northern
Philippines, it unilaterally abrogated the Bates Treaty on March 2, 1904, claiming the Sultan had failed to quell Moro
resistance and that the Treaty was a hindrance to the effective colonial administration of the area.
Payments to the Sultan and his Datus were also stopped. But in reality, Bates never intended to ratify the Treaty. As
Bates would later confess, the agreement was merely a temporary expedient to buy time until the northern forces
were defeated.
"The Treaty was made at a time when nearly all the state volunteers had been sent home and other troops had not
arrived to take their places. It was a critical time, as all the troops were needed in Luzon. The US Government could
not afford to stir up trouble with the Moros. The Treaty was made as a temporary expedient to avoid trouble. It has
served its purpose for three years, and there is now no reason why the Treaty which was but a temporary measure at
a critical time, should not be changed in accordance with the conditions."
The Sultan protested vehemently and payments were reinstated. He argued that he could not stop the Moro attacks
against the Americans, because the U.S. had imposed poll and land taxes on the population, a practice which the
Moros were not used to.
In a letter to Governor General Luke Wright in April 1904, the Sultan urged the Americans not to "put yokes on our
necks that we cannot bear, and don't make us do what is against our religion, and don't ask us to pay poll tax forever
and ever as long as there is sun and moon, and don't ask taxes for land which are our rights of the Moro people,
including all that grows in Jolo and its islands."
Now securely in a position of power and strength after the defeat of the northern Filipinos, the U.S. launched a
determined campaign to suppress the ever-defiant Tausugs, who were as opposed to U.S. rule as they had been to the
Spanish occupation.
Known as the Moro Campaigns, this ferocious war between American soldiers and Moros continued in the south of
the Philippines for the next thirteen years, making it the longest war in U.S. history.
It was a bloody war; neither side took any quarter, nor gave any. During its course, two infamous massacres occurred
on the island of Jolo: Bud Dajo in1906 and Bud Bagsak in 1913.
The Battle of Bud Dajo on March 7, 1906 was a consequence of the U.S. "Policy of Disarmament" as implemented by
General John "Black Jack" Pershing. The Moro Wars taught the U.S., albeit costly, the inseparability of a Tausug and his
weapon.
In turn, what the Moros had to reckon with in the American soldier was the motivation that had fueled the Indian
wars in America. The cry "A good Indian is a dead Indian!" became "A good Moro is a dead Moro!" Passions raged and
collided, and blood flowed during that crimson period in Jolo.
In the Dajo Massacre, some 900 men, women, and children were slaughtered atop an extinct volcano in the
municipality of Danag on the island of Jolo. The Americans spared not a single life of the brave Tausugs who defended
their mountain retreat -- not a man, woman or infant!
Though the bloody campaigns against the Moros officially ended in 1915, U.S. troops continued to encounter sporadic
Moro attacks for the next two decades.
Recognizing a flaw in the wording of the Bates Treaty, Governor Frank Carpenter asked the Sultan, his heirs, and his
council to sign another agreement with the U.S. on March 22, 1915.
This time, for the Sultan and his heirs to abdicate their claims to the throne. Article IX of the treaty refers to the
"government of the Sultan."
More importantly, the new agreement was meant to put an end to the existing parallel government of the Sultan; the
Sultan continued to rule as before exercising his powers in all aspects of Moro life, collecting taxes, and trying civil
and criminal cases.
When the U.S. protested the Sultan’s practice, he simply demurred that his status as sovereign head was reinstated
when the U.S. abrogated the treaty in 1904. Thus, Carpenter wrote in his 1916 report that it was "necessary and
opportune definitely to extinguish all claims of the Sultan to any degree of temporal sovereignty."
Implementation of the 1915 Agreement was further delayed by negotiations over what the Sultan and his heirs would
receive in exchange for their giving up their temporal powers.
The negotiations which concluded in May 1919 gave the sultan a life-time payment of P12,000 per annum and
allowed him and his heirs the usufruct use of public lands. Carpenter was confident that with the settlement final, the
Sultan would now cooperate with the U.S. by fully recognizing U.S. sovereignty over Sulu.
In his 1919 Report, Carpenter stated that "this satisfactory conclusion has resulted in the forward advance of the
policy of amalgamation and in the complete triumph of the ideals of the Government and the Filipino people."
As the U.S. was preparing to give the Philippines commonwealth status in preparation for its independence in 1946,
some Moro leaders favored integration into the republic but majority from both Sulu and Mindanao protested the
plan to incorporate their homeland into the Philippine state.
"Our public land must not be given to people other than the Moros," they urged. "[I]f we are deprived of our land, how
can we then earn our own living? A statute should be enacted to forbid others from taking over our land, a safe and
reliable way to forestall a tragedy."
But their pleas fell on deaf ears. The U.S. went ahead and turned over the islands to Filipino hands.
In 1946, contrary to its promise under the Bates Treaty "not to give or sell Sulu or any part of it to any other nation,"
the U.S. incorporated Mindanao and Sulu against the will of the Moro people into the state now known as the
Philippines Republic.
(Madge Kho is a native of Jolo and presently resides in Boston, Massachusetts where she is co-chair of the Friends of
the Filipino People, an organization founded in 1973 to oppose U.S. support for the Marcos dictatorship)
(Madge is also a director of the Jolo Culture and Historical Society. She has a master's degree in Public Administration
from Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.)
SOURCES :
1) Frank Carpenter; "Report of the
Governor of the Dept. of Mindanao
and Sulu Frank Carpenter, January 1December 31, 1914" in Report of the
Philippine Commission, 1914,
pp. 325-407 inclusive, Bureau of
Consular Affairs, War Dept.,
Government Printing Office
(Washington, D.C., 1916).
2) Peter Gowing; "Mandate in Moroland:
The American Government of Muslim
Filipinos 1899-1920", Philippine Center
for Advanced Studies, (Quezon City,
Philippines, 1977).
3) Vic Hurley; "Swish of the Kris",
E.F. Dutton, (New York, NY, 1936).
4) Lo Shih-Fu; "The Moro Rebellion:
Its History and Background" in Issues
and Studies, Volume X, October 1973.
5) Cesar Adib Majul; "Muslims in the
Philippines, University of the
Philippines Press, (Quezon City,
Philippines, 1973).
6) Hunter Miller, ed; "Treaties and Other
International Acts of the U.S.A.",
Volume 4, 1836-1846,
U.S. Government Printing Office,
(Washington, D.C., 1934).
7) Lela Garner Noble; "Philippine Policy
Toward Sabah. A Claim to
Independence", The University of
Arizona Press (Tuczon, Arizona, 1977)
Sixto Orosa; "Sulu Archipelago and Its
People", World Book Company,
(New York, NY, 1931).
9) Ralph Benjamin Thomas; "Muslims
but Filipinos - The Integration of
Phlippine Muslims, 1917-1946."
- unpublished doctoral dissertation,
History Dept., Univ Pennsyl, 1971.
10) Najeeb Saleeby; "History of Sulu",
Manila Filipiniana Book Guild, Inc.,
(Makati, Philippines, 1963).
11) Rad Silva; "Two Hills of the Same
Land", Mindanao-Sulu Critical Studies
& Research Group (Philippines,
1979).
12) Nicolas Tarling; "Sulu and Sabah:
A Study of British Policy Towards the
Philippines and North Borneo from
the Eighteenth Century", New Day
Publishers (Quezon City, Philippines,
1985).
13) U.S. Senate; "The Bates Treaty",
136, 56th Congress, 1st Session,
U.S. Government Printing Office,
(Washington, D.C. 1900).
14) U.S. Congress; "US Treaties at Large"
Volume 31, page 1942, 56th
Congress, 1899-1901, U.S.
Government Printing Office
(Washington, D.C., ). Legal citation 31
Stat 1942.
15) James Francis Warren; "The Sulu
Zone 1768-1898: The Dynamics of
External Trade, Slavery, and Ethnicity
in the Transformation of a SE Asian
Maritime State", New Day Publishers
(Quezon City, Philippines, 1985).
16) Marion Wilcox; "Harper’s History of
the War in the Philippines", Harper &
Bros., (New York, NY, 1900).
17) Charles Wilkes; "Sooloo" in Volume V
of Narrative of the United States
Exploring Expedition, during the
years 1838, 1839, 1841, 1842,
C. Sherman, (Philadelphia, PA, 1844).
(Image shows part of Sabah which was once under the SULU Sultanate before)
...
See less
2 shares
Like
Comment
Share
Comments
See more of Lawas Kami on Facebook
Log in
or