The History of Sulu

by Najeeb M. Saleeby

Inasmuch as the treaty of 1878 was not abrogated and no distinct effort was actually made to disregard it, it should be regarded as the official and most authentic expression of Spain’s relation, rights, and purpose in Sulu. The terms of this treaty gave Spain indisputable sovereignty over Sulu, the right to occupy all necessary points and to establish military garrisons wherever needed, the right to establish custom-houses at occupied points, the right to limit or control the importation of firearms, the right to suppress piracy and to demand the Sultan’s coöperation in its suppression.

The degree or amount of sovereignty Spain was to exercise over Sulu was very indefinitely stated. The term “indisputable” does not signify “complete,” as some hasty reports on Moro affairs have expressed it. The aim of the treaty was to exclude Great Britain, Germany, and other foreign nations from the Spanish sphere of influence over Sulu, and the word “indisputable” should be interpreted in this sense, which is clearly expressed in the Sulu text of the treaty. At that time there was no intention on the part of Spain to assume the control of Sulu internal affairs and the Sulus endeavored to guard their complete freedom and right to continue their political organization, laws, and religion by specifying those powers which Spain had a right to exercise over them and by declaring emphatically that all their customs, usages, and religion should not be changed. The Sulu word for “customs” signifies laws, organization, and administrative methods. It is the political not the social sense of the word about which they were so very particular. The treaty did not entitle Spain to interference, or to institute any measure that tended toward political change or reform in Sulu. The sultan was left supreme in the exercise of his authority over Moros. The treaty simply secured undisputed Spanish control over Sulu’s foreign relations and commerce and incorporated Sulu into the Philippine Archipelago in this sense only. It further established peace within the Archipelago by checking any possible revival of Sulu piracy. It appears that both distinguished governors, Martinez and Parrado, interpreted the treaty in this sense, and the Sulus certainly so understood it.

Two important steps were taken by Spain later than 1878 in order to modify the relations established by the treaty. The first of these steps was a resolution to appoint the Sultan of Sulu or control the succession to this office. This occurred in 1886 when Sultan Harun was declared by the Spanish Government, in answer to the requests of Governor-General Terrero and Governor Arolas, as the legitimate sultan. By this act the Madrid Government asserted its right to a degree of actual sovereignty over Sulu internal affairs and backed its assertion with the necessary force and partially carried it through at the hands of Governor Arolas. Jamalul Kiram II finally recognized, to a certain extent, Spain’s authority in this matter and accepted her right of approval or confirmation of the election.

The second step was an attempt to exact tribute from the Sulus. This was done by a decree issued in 1894 by Governor-General Blanco directing that a census be taken of Sulu and a poll tax of 1 “real” per capita be collected. Advantage was taken at that time of the strong desire of Raja Muda Amirul Kiram to become sultan. Sultan Harun was persuaded to resign, and the measure adopted for the collection of the tribute resulted in the payment of a sum of money or its equivalent by Amirul Kiram and the latter’s appointment as sultan. The scheme was a compromise by which Spain attempted to assume more control over Sulu, and Amirul Kiram secured his appointment as sultan without having to go to Manila for this purpose. However, the attempt to impose a tribute on the Sulus appears to have failed completely. No census was taken and no tribute was asked in later years.

The purpose of Spain, in accordance with her official declarations, may therefore be summed up as follows: 1. Complete control of Sulu foreign relations; 2. Complete control of Sulu commerce; 3. The right to appoint the sultan; 4. The right to impose tribute on the Sulus.

The first two propositions were legitimate and proper. Both could be accomplished and retained by virtue of Spain’s naval power, merchant marine, and friendly foreign relations with the European nations. The Sulus had no navy and no steam vessels. Their native boats could not offer any significant resistance and were powerless to oppose the Spanish navy. Ever since 1844 the latter was in the ascendant and by 1870 it had completely overpowered the Sulu naval forces. Both these propositions were conceded to Spain in the treaty of 1878 and were justly held ever since. They strengthened the unity of the Philippine Archipelago and secured strength and permanent internal peace.

The third proposition, the right to appoint the sultan, was in effect defeated. It was poor policy. At the end of the bloody struggle that arose because if it, Spain retained only the right to confirm the choice of the nation. Had Governor Arolas confined himself to this point he would have won without a contest and without engendering hostility and ill feeling toward his Government. Had a test of arms been the sole arbiter of the question Governor Arolas might be said to have won his point completely, for his forces defeated those of the Sulus in every encounter; but the tenacity of purpose, persistence, and patriotism of the Sulus outlived his determination, and what was won by force and cruelty was given up in the end as inadvisable and impolitic.

The fourth proposition fell through. The best argument that can be advanced in its favor is that a tribute was actually paid by the Sultan Jamalul Kiram II in 1894 and that the tax was not imposed in later years because of the extensive campaign conducted in Mindanao and the frequent changes of Governor-General, and also because of the Tagalog insurrection of 1896. Such argument is more in the nature of an apology than a defense. There is some significance in exacting tribute from the Sultan of Sulu, but the principal of the tribute was utterly defeated. The sultan evidently evaded the question entirely as soon as he felt secure in his office. Such a measure would certainly have been opposed by the Sulus. They would have risen to a man and sacrificed more life and treasure in this cause than in the previous one of the appointment of their candidate for the sultanate. The nation was somewhat divided in the former case, but in the matter of resisting the payment of a tribute there was not a dissenting vote. They would have fought most vigorously and unitedly. Governor Arolas did not exhaust their fighting powers; they could have fought just as well in 1888 as in 1886–87. One party alone advanced against Jolo in 1895, and a band attacked landing soldiers in 1897. To pay tribute to a foreign power meant vassalage in their opinion, and this they could not tolerate. They would fight, not on the strength of a careful and intelligent estimate of their power as compared to that of Spain, but because they would not tolerate the idea and their national honor would prompt them to exhaust their strength before they would yield to such a humiliating proposition. Their fighting power was only one unit of their national resources; their national independence, national character, unity and stability of organization were other units which added considerable strength to their resistance. What they could not defeat they would have left alone; what they could not tolerate they would have evaded; what they could not evade they would have run away from.

An exaggerated degree of honor and self-pride, uncontrolled by a certain degree of intelligence, culture, and moral courage, is dangerous. Courage unencumbered by prosperity or wealth and spurred by abnormal religious sentiment, becomes desperate, reckless, and fanatical. Moreover the treatment by a highly civilized nation of another limited in culture and development is under moral restrictions similar to those pertaining to the treatment by a man of mature age of a minor. A minor can not be blamed for lack of mature reason, and no more can be expected of him than he is able to do. He must further be treated with equity and justice, though he is weak and helpless. It was impossible for the Sulus to change their character at once. It was absurd to expect of them any action contrary to their natural disposition and national character. It was the duty of the sovereign nation to recognize the national character of her inferior and treat her wisely and justly. Tact might have been mightier than an army and wise measures might have worked wonders. Nations can be educated and can develop like individuals and force is a poor agent where the carrying out of a certain measure is intended to bring about reform.

Spain imposed tribute upon the Sulus without being prepared to enforce its collection and before the Sulus were ready for such a measure and the relation it involved. Granting that the funds derived from the tax were to be used for the benefit of the Sulus the principle underlying the institution of the tax is repugnant to the people and no means were used to remedy this feeling or train the people for its tolerance. No savage or semicivilized nation can be reformed and governed without initial expense, nor can reform be effected in a day, although forces and funds are available in plenty.