Category: Conflict & disaster

Categories
ASEAN Conflict & disaster Environment Liberty

[1642] Of for humanity’s sake, Myanmar must open up

The attitude of the junta government of Myanmar does not make the situation in the Irrawandy delta any better for the country. While the government has appealed for aid from the United Nations,[1] its reluctance in accepting aids from any side is a huge impediment to relief efforts. The reluctance of the government of Myanmar is exemplified by the string attached to its request: they prefer government-to-government aids only and has refused aids from some groups.[2][3][4] Under pressure of time, Myanmar does not have the luxury to be a chooser; it has to be more open in this matter.

The reluctance to allow relief groups to enter into Myanmar is politically comprehensible. Presence of foreigners in the country could potentially expose the locals to ideas hostile to the military junta. If the junta indiscriminately allows all foreigners to access the country, not all of these foreigners would be aid workers. Some would be journalists reporting news that the junta government would want to censor while other may simply be pro-democratic activists hoping to campaign for the upcoming referendum on the new constitution of the country.

From humanitarian point of view however, the reluctance is confounding and angering. How could a government think of its power first above the people?

In answering the question, the junta government is an authoritarian government. Of course it is more concerned for its welfare than that the people the junta rules upon. An authoritarian government is unaccountable to its people and it is no wonder why the junta government places the welfare of the people down in its list.

As the world learns more of the true impact of the horrible disaster, the more unacceptable the action of the junta becomes. If the junta continues with its decision, if there is a government that deserves to be toppled, the junta government has to be the one.

In Myanmar where communication infrastructure is much left to be desired,[5] the provision of aids will be a great challenge. As a result, the action of dispensing aids to those in great need will require time. The government of Myanmar’s reluctance in accepting aidswill only lengthen the time required to get food, blanket and medicine to the victims of Cyclone Nargis. If the United States government performed miserably in New Orleans, the government of Myanmar with its policy centered on isolationism may potentially redefine the term government failure to a new low.

In times like this, it is best for Myanmar to be more open. In the name of humanity, it must open its border.

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

[1] — The government of Burma formally appealed to the United Nations for assistance, which is quite a breakthrough. That allows us to work now with the government to decide how we can mobilize assistance. Now the question on the ground is about capacity: do we have enough capacity for the U.N. agents to carry out assistance and provide assistance? I can tell you right now: no. Current capacity there now is for normal situations. What we have now is a tragic situation, so the capacity should be commensurate to the level of the crisis. [Some aid delivered in cyclone-ravaged Myanmar. CNN. May 6 2008]

[2] — The government of Myanmar has not officially endorsed international assistance, the UNJLC added, but said Myanmar “is willing to accept international assistance, preferably bilateral, government to government.” [‘A tragic situation’. Newsweek. May 5 2008]

[3] — YANGON, Myanmar – Myanmar’s isolationist regime blocked United Nations efforts Thursday to airlift urgently needed high-energy biscuits to survivors of a cyclone that may have killed more than 100,000 people, U.N. officials said. [Myanmar blocks U.N. airlift for cyclone victims. Associated Press via MSNBC. May 8 2008]

[4] — The government is demonstrating its reluctance now by its slow acceptance of the aid it requested, complicating visa procedures for international donors and apparently seeking to limit the access of foreign relief workers. [A crack in Myanmar’s wall. Seth Mydans. International Herald Tribune. May 7 2008]

[5] — Before we do anything, one has to take into account the specific damage that has been waged. The roads have been blocked, communications [are] down, and the area is not the most advanced in terms of communication capabilities. So it’s very difficult to assess the damage at this point. [‘A tragic situation’. Newsweek. May 5 2008]

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty Society

[1635] Of violent PRC citizens in South Korea fuels anti-PRC sentiment

Violence by Chinese during the Olympic flame relay in Seoul, Sunday, has ignited anti-China sentiment among Koreans.

The Beijing Olympic torch was successfully relayed from the South to North Korea, supported by enthusiastic Chinese supporters. However, the relay was marred by a clash between human rights activists and an overwhelming number of supporters, which left a sour taste in the mouth of many South Korean citizens.

Before the event, the police’s main concern was that rallies by human rights activists to protest China’s crackdown in Tibet might disrupt the relay. However, tens of thousands of nationalistic Chinese supporters flocked to streets in Seoul, resulting in an outbreak of violence against anti-Beijing Olympic protestors.

[…]

Koreans watching the relay were surprised to see the lining up of as many as 10,000 Chinese on streets the flame passed through. About 8,300 policemen were mobilized for the event. Among other questions raised were whether all the Chinese were legal residents or not; how “foreigners” could attack citizens of their host country; and why they held a demonstration here, not in Beijing, a Seoul citizen said.

[…]

Citizens also criticized the police for their lack of stern measures against the Chinese nationalists. “It is obviously dereliction of duty,” Seong Baek-ju posted on the official Web site of the National Police Agency. “How could they not do anything about these Chinese rioters.” [Anti-Chinese Sentiment Looms After Torch Relay. The Korea Times. April 28 2008]

Hmm, foreigners attacking citizens and the police did nothing against the aggressors.

Why does that sound so familiar?

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty

[1492] Of I will take both

The moment CNN announced the assassination of Benazir Bhutto at a political rally on TV, I immediately realized how the event could be sung to impress to the world of the idea that security supersedes liberty. I half expected Pervez Musharraf to justify his previous decision to impose martial law but it did not right away come across my mind on how the assassination affects Malaysian politics. Weeks earlier, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said that he is willing to sacrifice public freedom for public safety.[1] Indeed, Deputy PM Najib Razak wasted no time to relate the uncertainties in Pakistan with dissent in Malaysia just a day after the death of Mrs. Bhutto.[2] The pictures painted by the Malaysian government however are disagreeable. The juxtaposition between liberty and security and the supposed trade off between the two is only an illusion undeserving of consideration of the rational minded. On the contrary, it is possible to have both. In fact, individual liberty cannot exist without security.

The concept of individual liberty within classical interpretation at the very least relies on the precept that an individual is free to act according to his will, bounded only by others’ same rights. These rights — negative rights — include but not limited to rights to life, to property and to freedom of expression that we Malaysians lack. It is a grave irony of us celebrating our freedom from colonial powers on yearly basis only to suffer oppression brought upon by our own government.

We are not unique. History without fail has shown how transgression of liberty occurs throughout human consciousness. One of many lessons we could derive from history is this: we must be prepared to defend our liberty; our individual liberty. These rights that make up liberty have to be protected from all efforts to negate it. Thus, as is ever so common in literatures of freedom, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

Liberty cannot stand without security. The instability of anarchy — anarchy as in the political philosophy — is a proof to that. This gives the impetus for a society to create a government, a state or any entity for that matter, to protect its members’ liberty from internal and external threats.

At the same time, a liberal constitution outlines individual liberty and in that respect, the role of government in protecting that liberty. While the entity enforcing the constitution is the rightfully elected arbiter of conflict of rights between individuals, in no whatsoever way it gives the state the authority to disrespect individual liberty, unlike the meek Malaysian Constitution.

A good liberal constitution is able to stop anybody, the state, the majority, the mob even, from robbing an individual of his liberty. Democracy by itself is useless; it has to be guided by a liberty-conscious document for tyranny of a majority is no different from tyranny of a dictator. That is the ultimate security. From there, is it not clear that for liberty to prevail, security is required?

In the end, there is no dilemma between liberty and security.

Security however does not necessarily demand liberty. One can be thrown into a cellar for hundreds of years, be safe and unfree from cradle to grave. I have a tingling suspicion that when a politician speaks as if there is a trade off between liberty and security, the term security requires qualification. He seeks not to throw himself into the cellar but instead, he seeks to throw free individuals, whom will not stand aside quietly while watching liberty is being trampled upon for whatever reason, into the cellar. When he speaks of security, he speaks for himself and not for others, not for individuals. When he speaks of security, he speaks of security to his grip to power. The only dilemma he speaks of is between others’ individual liberty and tyrants’ security.

Therefore, the next time someone presents to you an option between liberty and security, tell them with utmost confidence that you insist on having both.

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

[1] — PUTRAJAYA: Public safety will be the Government’s top priority before public freedom and there will be no hesitation to take the stiffest action on irresponsible people, said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.

“If the choice is between public safety and public freedom, I do not hesitate to say here that public safety will always win. I will not sacrifice my sense of accountability to the greater public, especially in the face of police intelligence about planned fighting or other violent intent.” [PM: Public safety will prevail over public freedom. The Star. December 10 2007]

[2] — Najib said political conflicts, assassinations and instability seen in some other countries should serve as a lesson for all Malaysians.

In this connection, he rapped those who had orchestrated street demonstrations that caused property damage and disrupted people’s daily activities, just to gain political mileage. [Najib: Goverment To Act Against Troublemakers. Bernama. December 29 2007]

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

This article was first published on Bolehland.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty

[1489] Of CNN: Benazir Bhutto is dead

While the situation in Pakistan is bad, but news on CNN comes as a shock; Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated:

Fair use. Copyrights by CNN. Screenshot by Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

There are conflicting reports though:

Dec. 27 (Bloomberg) — Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto escaped injury when a suicide bomber attacked her election rally in the garrison town of Rawalpindi. At least six people were killed, a government spokesman said. [Bhutto Unhurt in Suicide Bomb Attack at Pakistan Election Rally. Bloomberg. December 27 2007]

The NYT is not quite sure what is going on and so, it says… maybe:

Fair Use.

Regardless, scenes from before and after the blast are being shown on CNN.

It is unclear who committed the attack but Islamist groups and the military may be two of the clearest suspects yet.

What is clear is that there is so much confusion. Al-Jazeera on TV reports that she was shot before the bomb exploded. CNN reports otherwise. Some sources report that she was killed by the explosion itself.

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

p/s — the NYT makes up its mind:

Fair use

RAWALPINDI, Islamabad — An attack on a political rally killed the Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto near the capital, Islamabad, Thursday. Witnesses said Ms. Bhutto was fired upon before the blast, and an official from her party said Ms. Bhutto was further injured by the explosion, which was apparently caused by a suicide attacker. [Bhutto Assassinated in Attack on Rally. NYT. December 27 2007]

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty

[1488] Of Kosovo is a libertarian’s dilemma

Over 15 years after Slovenia and Croatia began the process of Balkanization, Kosovo is preparing to declare itself free from Serbia. As a libertarian, I am sympathetic to the Kosovar cause; freedom appeals to all libertarians. Yet, making a stand is harder than I thought it would be. Unlike the other republics that broke free from Yugoslavia, Kosovo has never been an individual component by itself in that federation.[1] Instead, it has always been part of Serbia with — at one time or another — considerable autonomy power. This fact holds me back from properly throwing my weight behind Kosovo. The Serbs themselves consider Kosovo as the cradle of Serbian state[2] but Kosovo nowadays is primarily inhabited by Albanians.[3] Hoping to comprehend the situation deeper and eventually to form an opinion on the matter, I forced myself to read up on Kosovar history. After two days worth of reading, I may have decided that history may be more of a burden than of help. Or perhaps, we are simply being pushed into a false dilemma by various actor states.

I come to this conclusion not because I fell asleep while reading Kosovar and to some extent, Serbian, and inevitably Yugoslavian history. On the contrary, I found it quite exhilarating. Where ignorance once ruled, light shone upon me, establishing causes and effects of historical actions. The reason for my conclusion is that, its history is too convoluted and it goes back too far into the past. The hostility between Albanian and Serbs could be traced back all the way to the era when the Ottoman Empire first conquered the area in the 14th century.[4] That is about 700 years ago and the hostility still persists.

A number of atrocities were committed by both sides throughout the 700 years and the last atrocity occurred during the late 1990s Kosovo War, barely years after the horror of neighboring Bosnia. NATO brought itself to intervene by driving the Serbs army out of Kosovo, but not before scars were inflicted on both Kosovo and Serbia, perhaps, matching wounds suffered by Bosnians. Since then, while Kosovo is officially part of Serbia, it has been administered by the United Nations.[5] But an older Old Bridge has been built and Bosnia prospers, unlike Kosovo.

The status of Kosovo now hangs in balance. The Kosovars overwhelmingly prefer independence to continued association with Serbia while the Serbs strongly insist that Kosovo is an integral part of Serbian state. With two clear diametric positions, it is unclear what will happen if Kosovo moves toward independence unilaterally.[6]

It is not impossible that violence will erupt yet again in the Balkans. Serbia has indicated that it is prepared to use force to secure the integrity of Serbian territory.[7] On the other side, Albanian Kosovars are prepared to take up arms for a free Kosovo.[8]

While traditional western powers and Russia are ready to take sides,[9] notwithstanding their hypocrisy,[10] I find both Kosovo and Serbia as having valid arguments. Almost like the never ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Kosovo’s case is supported by current reality on the ground; the reality is that a majority of Kosovars demand freedom. For Serbia, history justifies its claim over Kosovo just as history justifies Palestinian claim to the land Israel now sits upon.

Alas, we are living in the moment and adherence to history will cause too much pain. This calls for pragmatism. Just as the most palatable solutions for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a two-state solution instead of ejection of all Israelis into the sea, perhaps, the same goes to the question of Kosovo.

An astute libertarian would ask, but what about property right? Does Serbia not entitle to it?

I believe we can do better without resorting to crude pragmatism. Indeed, from a libertarian perspective, what important is the guarantee of individual liberties. With such guarantee, where all is treated equally, the idea of Kosovo in Serbia is possible just as the idea of one secular Israel is possible. Israelis and Palestinians as well as Kosovars and Serbians do not have to entrap themselves within the limiting framework of statehood.

The question is, are all sides prepared to live side by side as equal?

With respect to that, individual liberty may be the last thing on the mind of the Kosovars. If that is the case, then, I cannot find the most moral solution to the Kosovo question from the point of liberty.

If I had to choose, if I had to play into the despicable dilemma, unless Serbia could guarantee individual liberty to all Kosovars and indeed, all Serbians, I would be partial to Kosovo. In the face of tyranny, a free Kosovo prevails over Serbian claim. In face of tyranny, history has to be sidelined.

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

[1] — Kosovo did exist as a component independent of Serbia while it was under the Ottoman Empire. But in Yugoslavia, Kosova has always been part of Serbia. See Kosovo Province, Ottoman Empire at Wikipedia.

[2] — Nikolic said Serbia could not sit idly by as its cherished Kosovo province, considered the cradle of Serbia’s medieval state, wins recognition by the United States and most EU countries. [AP Interview: Ultranationalist leader calls for Russian military bases in Serbia. AP via IHT. December 18 2007]

[3] — See the Demographics section under Kosovo at Wikipedia.

[4] — See Battle of Kosovo at Wikipedia.

[5] — See United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 at Wikipedia.

[6] — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice affirmed Friday that international negotiations over the future of Kosovo had reached a dead end, even as its probable new prime minister said that Kosovo would not seek independence from Serbia until early next year.

After a meeting of NATO foreign ministers here, Ms. Rice indicated that diplomacy had been exhausted and that Washington was ready to move to the next phase.

[…]

“That means we have to move on to the next step,” she said. “It is not going to help to put off decisions that need to be taken.” Serbia, which is vehemently opposed to Kosovo’s independence, has offered the province broad autonomy, but Kosovo does not want any agreement that falls short of full independence. [Talks on Kosovo Hit a Dead End, Rice Says. NYT. December 8 2007]

[7] — BELGRADE: Serbia is ready to use force to prevent Western nations from recognizing Kosovo as an independent state, a senior Serbian official warned Wednesday. [Serbia threatens to use force if West recognizes Kosovo. IHT. September 5 2007]

[8] — The Albanians, making up 90 per cent of the 2.2 million inhabitants, are hostile to Serbia and have threatened to take up arms if they do not win independence. [Kostunica: Serbia would annul Kosovo’s independence. EUX.TV. December 17 2007]

[9] — The twist is all the stranger because Serbs have so far looked mostly to Russia for assistance, because most Western countries have supported Kosovo’s independence drive. [Serbia Enlists Some Unlikely Faces in Its Quest to Keep Kosovo. NYT. December 23 2007]

[10] — MOSCOW President Vladimir Putin says the world must apply the same standards to the separatist Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as it does to the Serbian province of Kosovo, where many are seeking independence. [Putin says world should regard Kosovo, separatist Georgian regions on equal footing. NYT. September 16 2006]