Sabah Revisited: Untangling Historical Claims and Legal Complexities in the Carpenter-Kiram Treaty Debate

By Louis ‘Barok‘ C. Biraogo — January 7, 2024

SABAH: Ground Zero for the combustible mix of history, law, and geopolitics. At the heart of this contention lies the 1915 Carpenter-Kiram Treaty, now thrust back into the spotlight by Abraham Idjirani, convenor and spokesperson of the newly created Mindanao and Sulu Unification Movement (MSUM). His claim that the treaty extended U.S. protection to Sabah challenges long-standing narratives and raises questions about colonial legacies, sovereignty, and self-determination.

The Idjirani Enigma: Unpacking the Assertions

Idjirani argues that the 1915 Carpenter-Kiram Treaty did more than formalize American sovereignty over the Sulu Archipelago; it also safeguarded the Sultanate’s rights to North Borneo, now known as Sabah. His central contentions include:

U.S. Protection: The treaty allegedly guaranteed the Sultanate of Sulu U.S. protection over its territorial interests, including Sabah.
Betrayal of Commitments: Idjirani accuses both the U.S. and Britain of violating this assurance by later placing Sabah under British administration, culminating in the 1930 U.S.-Britain Convention.

If substantiated, these claims could reshape the historical basis of the Philippines’ claim to Sabah, strengthen the Sultanate’s proprietary assertions, and challenge Malaysia’s sovereignty.

Contextualizing the Issue: A Historical Overview

The Sultanate of Sulu and Its Decline

At its zenith, the Sultanate of Sulu wielded power over parts of Mindanao, the Sulu Archipelago, and North Borneo. The 1658 cession of Sabah by the Sultanate of Brunei further solidified its territorial claims. However, colonial pressures from Spain, Britain, and later the U.S. eroded its authority, reducing the Sultanate to a symbolic entity by the early 20th century.

The Carpenter-Kiram Treaty of 1915

The treaty was primarily an agreement between the U.S. and the Sultanate of Sulu, transferring temporal power over the Sulu Archipelago to the American colonial government. While it recognized the Sultan’s religious authority, it did not explicitly reference Sabah, which at the time was under lease to the British North Borneo Company.

The British North Borneo Company and Colonial Control

The 1878 agreement between the Sultan of Sulu and the British North Borneo Company allowed the latter to administer Sabah. Though the agreement’s language—cession or lease—remains contested, British governance was firmly established, transitioning Sabah to a protectorate in 1888 and later to a Crown Colony in 1946.

Power Play: Law, Politics, and Strategic Interests

The Formation of Malaysia

Sabah joined Malaysia in 1963 following a UN-supervised referendum. While Malaysia argues this decision reflects the will of the people, the Philippines contests its legitimacy, asserting that the Sultanate’s rights and the nature of the 1878 agreement were disregarded.

The Philippines’ Position

The Philippines bases its claim on historical continuity, the 1878 lease interpretation, and the Sultanate’s receipt of annual rent payments from Malaysia. It also contends that sovereignty over Sabah was never ceded, making the 1963 referendum insufficient to override its claims.

Malaysia’s Counterarguments

Malaysia’s position is grounded in:

Historical Sovereignty: Interpreting the 1878 agreement as a cession of sovereignty.
Self-Determination: Highlighting the 1963 referendum as the people’s choice to join Malaysia.
Legal Precedents: Referencing the 2001 International Court of Justice ruling on Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan, which indirectly dismissed the Philippines’ Sabah claim.

Philippine State Actions and Diplomatic Maneuvers

The Philippines has sought to rebut Malaysia’s counter-arguments through various means:

Diplomatic Protests: It has consistently rejected Malaysia’s sovereignty over Sabah, challenging actions such as the issuance of identity documents to Filipinos in Sabah.
Historical Reassertion: Reviving institutions like the North Borneo Bureau to reinforce its claim and including Sabah in official maps and narratives.
Challenging the Referendum: Arguing that the 1963 UN mission was flawed, with insufficient representation of the Sultanate of Sulu and the Philippines.
Leveraging Rent Payments: Emphasizing Malaysia’s continued payments to the Sultanate’s heirs as evidence of a lease, not cession.

Navigating Shared Futures: History, Sovereignty, and Cooperation

Resolving the Sabah dispute demands a careful balancing of historical claims, national interests, and regional stability.

Joint Historical Commission: Establish a bilateral or ASEAN-mediated commission to investigate and clarify historical documents, fostering mutual understanding.
Economic Cooperation: Pursue joint development agreements in Sabah to focus on shared prosperity while deferring sovereignty debates.
International Arbitration: Consider legal arbitration under a neutral body like the International Court of Justice, though this requires Malaysia’s consent—a significant obstacle.
Cultural Integration: Promote social and cultural initiatives to bridge divides between Filipino communities in Sabah and Malaysians, fostering goodwill.

Conclusion

The Carpenter-Kiram Treaty, while historically significant, cannot be viewed as the sole determinant of Sabah’s status. The issue remains deeply intertwined with colonial legacies, competing legal interpretations, and the evolving principles of self-determination and sovereignty.

The future of Sabah need not be defined by the shadows of its contested past. For the Philippines and Malaysia, the challenge is clear: to rise above division and forge a resolution that not only honors history but also charts a path for mutual progress. In unity, there lies an opportunity to transform Sabah from a battleground of sovereignty into a beacon of regional cooperation, inspiring generations to come.