Category: Conflict & disaster

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty

[1763] Of state’s role off the waters of Somalia

In the aftermath of the hijacking of two MISC vessels off the coast of Somalia, the Malaysian Royal Navy has dispatched two war vessels to the area.[0] The military has indicated that the two vessels will not intervene in the case but the ships are there to monitor the situation and protect other Malaysian interest around the area, at least for now.[1][2] Does this signal a greater willingness for Malaysia to flex its arms in the name of security in international waters far beyond Malaysian borders?

I am more interested in asking whether Malaysia should flex its arms at all.

The answer is, uncomfortably, I do not know. I say uncomfortably because I am unclear about the role of government in this issue.

The idea of small or limited government is based on the idea that the existence of a government is only to guarantee individual liberty of its citizens. The predicate necessarily limit the role of guardian of individual liberty to that if its citizens. Under this idea, sadly, tyranny abroad is no responsible of the state unless such tyranny clearly threatens the society which the state is answerable to.

In that sense, I am a dovish libertarians and this is how I rationalize my opposition to the invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies. In a discourse with hawkish libertarian, I have made it clear that I have no problem with unilateralism because I firmly believe in non-aggression theorem. Aggression will be met with aggression and there is no question in that. My opposition to the invasion of Iraq is the lack of credible threat which Saddam Hussein presented to the United States or other states, not unilateralism though perhaps in the past, I have cited unilateralism as a reason.

The fact that Saddam Hussein ruled despicably over the citizens of Iraq is deplorable but it remains that well being of citizens of Iraq is not the responsibility of other states. Unless, of course, we are prepared to have a world police to preserve individual liberty all over the world.

Yet, the idea of a world police does not sound too libertarian.

I fully comprehend the moral implication of my position and the more hawkish libertarians reserve no mercy in assailing my relatively dovish position. Yet, until I have found a convincing argument for a more hawkish position, I shall remain a dove.

Before I digress further, the hijacks off the Somali waters clearly threaten individual liberty of citizens of our state. Due to the functions of government under libertarian tradition, the state has to intervene to ensure the safety of the victims, which are citizens of our state.

But, do we need the state? Why do we not just let the employer of the victims, MISC, to act deal directly with the hijackers in all the glory of Coase Theorem? In the case that MISC intends to keep this issue private, why not let it?

But does a decision of a private firm to deal with the issue directly without intervention from the state absolve the responsibility of a libertarian state to preserve the individual liberty of its citizens which are also the employees of the firm?

The whole mess could be bypassed if MISC request for aid from the state. If such request is made, then military intervention from the state will be justified.

Where does this lead?

Any military action by our state in this case may threaten the sovereignty of another state. Does this mean war?

If it is, it would be a righteous war.

Then again, would it not be silly to go to war just because of two ships?

The problem presented by this problem must truly be appreciated because acceptance of this line of thought necessarily means agreeing to various military actions around the world. Two examples would be the Turkish incursion into northern Iraq[3] and the Israeli action against Lebanon.[4] Even the United States would have ra oute to attack Pakistan in order to eliminate threats presented by Al Qaeda.[5]

We of course could request for permission to act freely but responsibility within the territory of those states but is there a government, for instance, in Somalia to start with?

The last thing we want is to get entangled in their civil war. Malaysia under a United Nations peacekeeping mission has a painful experience in Somalia and I think some Somalis would remember the Malaysian role in back in 1993.[6]

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[0] — Malaysia will send two naval vessels to the Gulf of Aden after pirates hijacked two tankers operated by MISC Bhd., the country’s largest shipping line, in less than a fortnight. [No military ops yet to free crew. Bloomberg. September 3 2008]

[1] — “We sent two warships there (the Gulf of Aden) last Saturday but only to monitor the situation,” he said. [No military ops yet to free crew. The Star. September 3 2008]

[2] — “We sent two warships there (the Gulf of Aden) last Saturday but only to monitor the situation,” he said. [Najib: We need to protect four other vessels sailing in the area. The Star. September 3 2008]

[3] — ISTANBUL, Oct. 9 — Turkey took a step toward a military operation in Iraq on Tuesday, as its top political and military leaders issued a statement authorizing troops to cross the Iraq border to eliminate separatist Kurdish rebel camps in the northern region. [Turkey Authorizes Troops to Enter Iraq to Fight Rebels. New York Times. October 10 2007]

[4] — See the 2006 Lebanon War. Accessed September 3 2008.

[5] — WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy. [Turkey Authorizes Troops to Enter Iraq to Fight Rebels. Reuters. August 1 2007]

[6] — See the Battle of Mogadishu at Wikipedia. Accessed September 3 2008.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty Politics & government

[1760] Of Malaysia has not recognized Kosovo

I was surprised to discover that Malaysia has not recognized Kosovo as a sovereign state, despite the early enthusiasm exhibited by the Abdullah administration,

Back in February 2008, a statement by the Foreign Ministry of Malaysia read “Malaysia hopes the declaration of independence fulfils the aspiration of the people of Kosovo to decide their own future and ensure the rights of all to live in peace, freedom and stability“. In the same statement, Malaysia stated that it welcomed the independence of Kosovo.[1]

As mentioned previously, such recognition maybe problematic for Malaysia, especially when there are so many separatist movements around in the world. Just outside the door step of Malaysia lay Pattani, Mindanao and Palawan, among others. Move to recognize Kosovo could be viewed with suspicion by the neighbors of Malaysia. The latest Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia could also offer a challenge to effort to keep Malaysian foreign policy consistent if Malaysia recognized Kosovo.

Well, it seems that problem of consistency is no more of an issue as Malaysia has decided to be agnostic to the Kosovo question and possibly return to its policy of non-interference. The Malaysian ambassador to Serbia Saw Ching Hong expects Malaysia to support Serbian effort to refer the Kosovar unilateral declaration of independence to the International Court of Justice.[2]

But truly, why would the Foreign Minister issue such statement when it has no intention to recognize Kosovo outright?

Due to the statement, it caused a misunderstanding that led Kosovo to list Malaysia as one of the countries which recognize it.[3] I myself had concluded that the Kosovar declaration of independence was recognized by Malaysia. Eight months later, I learned that the statement was misleading.

Malaysia’s current position surrounding Kosovo is murky. It has to be noted that the opinion of the ambassador is not the official position of Malaysia. Or at least, I have yet to read any. Prior to the Malaysian ambassador’s statement, Serbia claimed that Malaysia had frozen the recognition process. Kosovo claimed otherwise.[4]

I think it is time for the Ministry to clarify the Malaysian position once and for all.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Malaysia said Wednesday it welcomed Kosovo’s independence from Serbia which was unilaterally announced Sunday. [Malaysia welcomes Kosovo’s independence. Kyodo. February 25 2008]

[2] — BELGRADE —  The Malaysian ambassador expects his country will back Serbia’s ICJ initiative at the UN General Assembly. [Ambassador: Malaysia to back ICJ initiative. B92. August 27 2008]

[3] — Kosovo declared independence on February 17, and has been recognised by 45 countries.Pristina initially included Malaysia in the recognition list, but it turned out that this was a misunderstanding; the Asian country had only welcomed Kosovo’s independence. [Malaysia Still Mulling Kosovo Recognition. Balkan Insight. August 14 2008]

[4] — Mansor, presenting the stance of his government, during the meeting with President Sejdiu said that there are no changes to the Malaysian stance towards Kosovo, disproving the claim of Serb Foreign Minister, Vuk Jeremiq, who on Tuesday announced that “Malaysia has frozen the recognition process of Kosovo. [Malaysia refutes Serbia claims of Kosovo recognition freeze. New Kosova Report. August 15 2008]

Categories
Conflict & disaster Economics

[1740] Of financing Iraqi reconstruction effort is an obligation for the US

US politicians have begun questioning the virtue of the US spending over USD20 billion on Iraq whereas the Iraqi government has merely spent less than USD4 billion on the construction exercise despite having USD70 billion of budget surplus.[1] By comparison, the planned expenditure for the 2008 Malaysian budget was approximately USD55 billion and we are running on deficit.

As reported by the New York Times, security problem in Iraq is discouraging the Iraqi government from spending. Turbulent environment is not conducive for developmental effort, forcing Iraqi institutions to hesitate before even beginning to spend money for new projects. As a result, large Iraqi surplus sits safely idle in banks, earning enormous interest amounting to half a billion to date.[2]

Despite the large surplus and low expenditure, I do not think that would rationalize the call for the US politicians to cut back the US reconstruction expenditure in Iraq, especially when the reason for reconstruction originates from destruction brought upon during the US-led invasion back in 2003.

I am in the opinion that the US has every obligation to finance the reconstruction exercise with its own resources, regardless of the resources available to the Iraqi government. To put it simply, if a person breaks it, the person should pay for it.

This however does not mean that the Iraqi government should not spend anything. It is far more helpful if both governments could simultaneously spend to improve Iraqi public infrastructures like roads and communication lines for example. Restoring old infrastructures and building new ones should take place simultaneously to hasten development of Iraq. In other words, both reconstruction exercise, which is the responsibility of the US, and further developmental exercise, which is the task of the Iraqi side, should happen concurrently.

It would be far more acceptable for US politicians to call for the Iraqi government to match the US developmental expenditure instead. Nevertheless, the inability of the Iraqi government to spend has to be addressed first before the call could be earnestly made and that means securing peace in the war torn country. After all, the low figure for expenditure is about inability to spend rather than refusal to spend.

With greater security, those projects could bring economic returns to the Iraqi society. With insufficient security in place, those projects would just be another targets for the insurgents.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] “The Iraqi government now has tens of billions of dollars at its disposal to fund large-scale reconstruction projects,” Mr. Levin, who is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said in a joint statement with Mr. Warner. “It is inexcusable for U.S. taxpayers to continue to foot the bill for projects the Iraqis are fully capable of funding themselves. We should not be paying for Iraqi projects, while Iraqi oil revenues continue to pile up in the bank.” [As Iraq Surplus Rises, Little Goes Into Rebuilding. James Glanz, Campbell Robertson. New York Times. August 5 2008]

[2] The deposit at the Federal Reserve Bank is so large that the United States has been obliged to make $435.6 million in interest payments to Iraq through the end of last year, according to the new report. [As Iraq Surplus Rises, Little Goes Into Rebuilding . James Glanz, Campbell Robertson. New York Times. August 5 2008].

Categories
ASEAN Conflict & disaster

[1674] Of Malaysia has a deal with the MILF

The Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) has allegedly struck a deal with Malaysia over Sabah, and that’s why the rebel group is silent on the claim issue, a high-ranking Palace official said.

This is supposedly the reason why the MILF wants Malaysia to remain as the head of the international monitoring team overseeing the ceasefire agreement with the government, the official who requested anonymity said.

The source added that Malaysia has been pressuring the Philippine government into resuming the peace talks despite the ”unconstitutional” demands of the MILF for its future homeland in Mindanao, because of the alleged agreement on Sabah. [MILF, Malaysia have deal on Sabah—official. The Manila Times. June 2 2008]

The situation in the Philippines is rather worrying.

Categories
ASEAN Conflict & disaster Economics

[1669] Of no cash aid for Myanmar

Money may not be the only thing in this world but it does make a lot of people happy, including the junta of Myanmar. But keeping the junta happy is not what I have in mind when I want to help the people of Myanmar.

We may have forgotten that Cyclone Nargis took tens of thousand of lives in the Irrawaddy Delta just weeks ago. With the season finale of American Idol, Akademi Fantasi and the loss of sovereignty over a rock or two to Singapore a few days ago, who can blame us? There are far more important things going on with our lives than anything that happens in the delta.

But if we actually cared a little about the victims of Nargis, we would remember that the junta placed restrictions on foreign aid. The junta even refused aid from relief groups, stating that they preferred government-to-government transactions.

The junta of Myanmar must be the luckiest government in the world because it can afford to become a chooser in a time when it really should be a beggar. Unbelievably, it took some coaxing by governments of other countries before the junta actually relented. Even then, aid workers were barred from entering the country. To think that other governments cared more about a person than the person’s government really reflects badly on a government.

Aid eventually crept in but as the blankets, medicine, food and cash got into Myanmar, there were reports that the junta repackaged the aid as if it were provided by the junta. But I suppose, if the aid gets to the victims, it does not matter. Black cat, white cat: whichever catches the mouse is a good cat.[1]

There were also reports that some of the aid was redirected away from the victims of the cyclone.[2] The French had foreseen this by initially offering a small amount of aid and said they did not believe the junta had the trustworthiness to manage the aid. I share the skepticism of the French government.

In many cases, money transfer is a superior method of giving aid when compared to transfer in kind. Money transfer has the potential of improving the receivers’ welfare much more than what material goods can ever do. This is especially so when the receivers know exactly what they need while donors are unfamiliar with the local environment.

Money, after all, is the most generally accepted medium of exchange. It is usually harder for a person to barter blanket for food because the double coincidence of wants has to occur first before that transaction can take place. This is true for many situations, including the one involving fuel subsidy in Malaysia. Money transferred to those the authority wishes to help is a better policy in enhancing welfare than material transfer.

Money or cash transfer, however, does suffer from a problem called moral hazard. In the case of Myanmar, the donors may want to help cyclone victims buy food, blanket and rebuild their livelihood. But with little ability to oversee how it is actually spent, the victims may use the money to buy cigarettes or something less useful in improving their welfare.

Money transfer may also not be as useful in Myanmar as in other places in peaceful times. Disasters, especially the major ones, tend to push prices up as distribution channels suffer damage, causing supply problems. Add to the increased demand, prices will rocket, hence reducing its purchasing power.

Prices shot up in Florida in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and it surely is happening in the Irrawaddy. Some people derisively called it scalping but I call it economics. Regardless, donation in kind overcomes the problem of weaker purchasing power that any money donation under that scenario suffers.

Thirdly, just as how the French had expressed their skepticism, the junta cannot be trusted with money.

Now, there are caring Malaysian organizations out there that seek to alleviate the suffering of those in Myanmar by sending money over directly. Noble but their actions could prove unhelpful.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — YANGON, Burma — Burma’s military regime distributed international aid Saturday but plastered the boxes with the names of top generals in an apparent effort to turn the relief effort for last week’s devastating cyclone into a propaganda exercise. [Burma Junta Turns International Aid Into Form of Propaganda. Associated Press via FoxNews. May 11 2008]

[2] — The British ambassador to the United Nations, John Sawers, said Britain had also received unconfirmed reports that aid was being redirected away from disaster victims. [Myanmar Government Still Blocking Relief. New York Times. May 14 2008]

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

p/s — a version of this article was first published at The Malaysian Insider.