The Åland Islands, once disputed between Finland and Sweden, operates under self-rule as part of Finland. Image Source: Britannica

In the speech, the claimant to the title of Sultan of Sulu and Sabah addressed the Moro National Liberation Front’s 40th Foundation and Bangsamoro Freedom Day celebrations on 18 March 2008 as the official guest of honor.

Kiram argued for international recognition of a reconstituted and autonomous Sultanate encompassing both Sulu and Sabah. To support his call, Kiram drew on the example of the Åland Islands, a Swedish-speaking archipelago that was granted autonomy within Finland through arbitration by the League of Nations in 1920 following a territorial dispute between Finland and Sweden.

The comparison between Åland and the former territories of the Sulu Sultanate also overlooks important historical and political differences.

However, the speech contained several significant factual errors regarding Åland’s autonomy. Beyond misidentifying the League of Nations as the United Nations, Kiram claimed that Åland maintains its own military, issue their own passports, collects taxes independently, and possesses veto power over international treaties.

In reality, Åland is utterly demilitarized, and while the passports of Ålanders list “Åland” on its cover, it is still issued by the central Finnish government, not the autonomous administration. Collected taxes are also forwarded to the Finnish capital before funding is allocation to the islands. Furthermore, while Åland must be consulted in matters affecting specifically its administrative autonomy, it does not have the ability to veto all international agreements that have implications on the welfare of Åland or Finland as a whole.

A Confused Comparison between Åland and Sulu

The comparison between Åland and the former territories of the Sulu Sultanate also overlooks important historical and political differences. Åland’s autonomy was the result of international arbitration that recognizes its self-rule within Finland’s uncontested borders. Kiram, by contrast, called for the territorial transfer of Sabah, a state within Malaysia since 1963, proposing its integration into an external defunct political entity.

This marks a fundamental departure from the Åland model. Sabah currently enjoys formal autonomy within the Federation of Malaysia and constitutional recognition of its diverse indigenous cultures.

Across the Sulu Sea, the province of Sulu within the Philippines has been confirmed as separate from the autonomous region of Bangsamoro Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (BARMM) in a 2024 ruling by the Supreme Court of the Philippines. This follows a 2019 plebiscite where a majority in Sulu voted against inclusion in the BARMM. The province’s future administrative status remains unclear.

The Sultanate, meanwhile, continues to exist only as a cultural institution without governing powers in either Malaysia or the Philippines. That Kiram called for the Sabah region’s inclusion under a defunct Sultanate with no administrative responsibilities begs important questions over his practical vision for the land and its people.

How might a restored Sultanate represent the people?

Kiram also called for Tausug to become the official language of both Sulu and Sabah. While the Sultan acknowledged the Samals and Badjaos, no mention was made of other major ethnic groups such as the Kadazan-Dusun, the largest indigenous group in Sabah, which substantially outnumbers the Tausug population in that region.

This raises questions about whether the Tausug identity and language under a restored Sultanate should dominate the proposed autonomous structure and whether this would improve representation in both Sulu and Sabah.

What is a “protectorate”?

Kiram also repeatedly used the term “protectorate” to describe Åland while suggesting protectorate status would be “much much [sic] better than mere autonomy” for a restored Sultanate including Sulu and Sabah.

This is misleading. The imperial and colonial-era term “protectorate” generally describes a country that is protected by a foreign entity at the cost of surrendering its foreign policy to the control of the foreign power. This may even include acknowledging the right of the foreign country to intervene in domestic affairs. Some examples include Kuwait during 1899-1961 under the British Empire, or Panama during 1903-1936 under the United States.

With few exceptions, protectorates experience subjugation and exploitation, and generally benefit the protector more than the protectorate itself.

Fortunately, Åland itself is not a protectorate as Kiram suggests but an autonomous territory within the country of Finland that is not subject to the control of another country, the extinct League of Nations, or the United Nations.

Nonetheless, Kiram’s questionable application of “protectorate” in his vision for Sulu and Sabah takes on renewed relevance in light of recent remarks by Paul Cohen, the lead lawyer representing the Sulu heirs.

In November 2024, Cohen claimed that the heirs are free to lease control of Sabah to another foreign country—a notion far removed from the principles of self-determination or sovereignty yet eerily similar to the concept of a protectorate. It suggests a view of Sabah as a distributable property, not a region with its own people and political rights.

The original webpage hosting Kiram’s speech has since been taken down. Its removal may indicate recognition of the problematic claims it contained.

A Website Taken Down and Unresolved Challenges in Sulu

The original webpage hosting Kiram’s speech has since been taken down. Its removal may indicate recognition of the problematic claims it contained. Yet its recovery offers insight into the ongoing efforts by some claimants to the Sulu royal lineage to reassert political relevance through historical analogies.

Kiram’s invocation of Åland reveals the enduring appeal of international models of autonomy. But it also highlights the risks of drawing parallels without fully understanding the context. Where Åland remains a success story of cultural preservation within recognized borders, the proposal to revive the Sulu Sultanate and the transfer of lands and peoples involves active border disputes and questions that extend far beyond autonomous self-rule.

Indeed, Kiram is pursuing the acquisition of Sabah from Malaysia while the Sulu region has yet to settle the question of self-rule and sovereignty within the Philippines itself.

REFERENCES

Andres, L. (2024, November 13). Heirs now free to lease Sabah to China, Philippines, says lawyer. New Straits Times. https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2024/11/1133203/heirs-now-free-lease-sabah-china-philippines-says-lawyer

Esthus, R. A. (n.d.). Protectorates and spheres of influence: U.S. protectorates prior to World War II. American Foreign Relations. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Protectorates-and-Spheres-of-Influence-U-s-protectorates-prior-to-world-war-ii.html

Kiram, M. F. A. (2008, December). Speech of HM Sultan Muhammad Fuad Abdulla Kiram I. Royal Sulu. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20090126081349/http://royalsulu.com/mnlf.html

Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. (n.d.). The special status of the Åland Islands. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://um.fi/the-special-status-of-the-aland-islands

Philippine News Agency. (2024, November 27). SC: Sulu exit from BARMM final, executory. Philippine News Agency. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://www.pna.gov.ph/index.php/articles/1238755

U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. (n.d.). Kuwait – Countries. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved May 30, 2025, from https://history.state.gov/countries/kuwait