Category: Conflict & disaster

Categories
Conflict & disaster Environment Liberty

[849] Of environmental crisis in Lebanon and eastern Mediterranean

The war has just been widened in its scope. As with many other previous war, the casualties are not always human beings. According to National Geographic yesterday:

In the first week of the conflict, Israeli fighter planes struck the Jiyyeh power plant about 25 miles (40 kilometers) south of Beirut (map of Lebanon).

The attack set ablaze five oil tanks and caused the massive spill along the eastern Mediterranean coast. One of the tanks continues to burn, and officials fear the fire could cause a sixth tank to explode.

BBC alleges:

Almost as much oil may have entered the water as during the 1989 Exxon Valdez tanker incident in Alaska, which led to widespread ecological damage.

This in turn has caused environmental groups to worry about the livelihood of the endangered green turtle species. I wonder if Pelf knows this; she’s passionate about all things terrapins and turtles. I know that she’s working with another endangered species in the Malaysian east coast. I had the luxury of working with her in a conservation effort several months ago.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty

[848] Of a ceasefire would’ve prevailed in Lebanon if there were no veto power

I see the impotency of the United Nations to halt the current Israeli incursion into southern Lebanon as a proof that veto power within the United Nations Security Council needs to be abolished . Abolition of the veto power granted to the five permanent members of the UNSC is crucial as part of effort to restructure the world body.

I’m convinced that if a vote were called today to send a peacekeeping team to unilaterally enforce a ceasefire in southern Lebanon, a majority within the UNSC – even in the General Assembly – would resoundingly say yes. Yet, realistically, it would be vetoed by the United States. United States of America is of course of one of the five permanent members of the UNSC with veto power. It’s no brainer that the US is siding with Israel and prefer no ceasefire until Hezbollah and practically Lebanon is razed to the ground.

The ability to veto the voice of the majority goes against the spirit of democracy. It silences the will of the majority, benefiting the few; the few are imposing their will on the majority. The US, with its perchant to spread democracy, should’ve known better. For it to retain veto power is a hypocritical act, just like its support for Israel in the current Israel-Lebanon conflict.

Veto power is also another form of bureaucracy. With five veto powers, all resolutions need to satisfy the demand of the five, regardless whether the majority had already a say on it. A resolution passed by the majority will have to come back and forth from the masses to the five powers over and over again until total consensus is built – correction; consensus among the five permanent members is built.

The removal of veto privileges will democratize the UNSC. It’s also the first step to cut red tape within the UN. More importantly, the crisis in Lebanon would have been averted if there were no veto power.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty Politics & government

[836] Of catch-22 and democracy in the Mideast

I’m extremely disappointed with the US support for Israel in the current crisis in Lebanon though such support is expected . My disappointment originates from the Bush administration penchant to talk about democracy in the Mideast while their actions substantially differ from their words.

In the previous Palestinian election, Hamas won fair and square but the United States and Israel – and even the European Union – refused to accept the decision of the Palestinians. In the US and Israel’s mind, democracy is only democracy if the winner is the one favorable to them. We know however that that is not democracy but rather, hypocrisy instead.

In Lebanon, while the country is trying to build a working democracy, there comes Israel to wreck everything into pieces. How do we expect a fledging nation that just got out of a civil war to build a working democracy while its neighbor illegally exercises military might on Lebanese soil?

The situation is even more hypocritical considering how the US acted during the Rafik Hariri case. When the initial clues implicated Syria, the US was fast to criticize Syria and sided with Lebanon, citing democracy was under threat. However, when Israel clearly violated Lebanese ground, the US lends support to Israel instead, citing Israel has a right to exist while in fact, it’s Lebanon that is being threatened, not the former. Israel is threatening Lebanon’s right to security and thus, Israel is threatening a “startup” democracy. It’s awfully clear that the US is uninterested in nurturing democratic principles in the Middle East.

In the end, the situation in the Mideast is a catch-22 scenario. The US keeps pounding on its chest, yelling the only way is democracy but at the same time, it prevents democracy from prevailing. Every time a country in the Middle East makes progress in democracy, here comes the US and Israel to undo it.

If this illegal Israeli incursion into Lebanon does not stop soon, pure nationalistic thoughts will appeal to the oppressed masses. This might lead to fascism later, especially so when natural democratic progresses – not forced democracy as the one in Iraq – are being curtailed. This Israeli actions and US support will only encourage nominally democratic nations in the Mideast to regress back to autocracy.

If the regression to autocracy does occur, then Israel could declare to the world that it’s the only democracy in the region. Israel will of course ignore the fact that it contributed to containment of democratic thoughts and progresses in the Mideast in the first place.

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

p/s – in the New York Times today:

Is this the price we pay for aspiring to build our democratic institutions?

Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora.

Categories
ASEAN Conflict & disaster

[798] Of ASEAN fails East Timor

East Timor is deep in crisis and they’re in need of help. I’m glad to hear that East Timor has requested assistance from Malaysia and even happier to know that Malaysia is responding to the request. My only regret is that Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN) has neither been proactive nor responsive to the conflict. What’s more embarassing is to see Australia leading the expedition instead of ASEAN .

Those that have been reading my blog long enough would know that I advocate a stronger ASEAN. Since East Timor is part of Southeast Asia, I strongly feel that East Timor is part of ASEAN, regardless the fact that the country has yet to be granted an observer status, much less a membership. Therefore, I see the conflict as a trouble in ASEAN’s backyard. So, it’s only logical for me to want to see ASEAN to assist East Timor. Unfortunately, ASEAN has not and because of this, I believe ASEAN has failed East Timor.

I do understand that ASEAN is primarily an organization concerned with economic, political and cultural cooperation. It’s not a military alliance and ASEAN has no peacekeeping force of its own. However, I have no desire to see a failed state within Southeast Asia; ASEAN should feel the same way too. If ASEAN does feel the same way, then it should have the means to prevent states from falling into anarchy. That means must include a way to maintain law and order.

Perhaps, it’s time for ASEAN to have a formal body that could take police actions in time of crisis. If ASEAN had such body, it could have taken the lead in assisting East Timor and indirectly telling the world that we are capable of caring for our own welfare. More importantly, ASEAN wouldn’t have failed its small neighbor.

Categories
Conflict & disaster

[787] Of security checks in Malaysia

I am one of those people that have issues with security checks. I never pass a typical security check without failing it. Friends that had traveled with me more than once or twice can confirm this – those bastards even joke about it. They always joked, what is it between you and security check. I blame it on 9/11.

I failed security checks in New York. I failed it in Los Angeles. In San Francisco, Detroit, Washington D.C. Once in Stockholm during transit. Another in Singapore. The latest was Kuala Lumpur, yesterday, on my way to Khazanah Nasional office within the Petronas Twin Towers. That metal detector that everybody goes through is just my arch bane. This bane however has allowed me to make a comparison of some security measures taken by Malaysia with those implemented in Singapore and the United States.

In the US, each time I failed initial security check, I was subjected to further scrutiny; a thorough check. I had to take my shoes off, take my metal belt off and undergo an awkward body check. Not to mention, harassed by personal metal detector. The officers even went through my hand luggage. Too much hassle to say the least. They also would give my personal details extra attention. This is one of the reasons why I always tried to get to the airports in the US a few hours earlier. It would suck to miss a flight.

In Singapore, it’s about the same thing though not quite as strict as those in the US.

But in Malaysia, I think I could bring in a bomb with me, got caught at the metal detector, questioned by security personnel, then tell them that it isn’t a bomb and get away with it. I kid you not.

First case was at the airport when I first set foot in Malaysia for the first time in a bit over four years. I failed the metal detector and a security person asked me what may have triggered the alarm. I – already well-experienced the art of answering this type of questions – told the person that it could be my boot, or my belt. She believed it and let me go.

Second case was at the Singaporean border. At the Malaysian side. I’ve blogged about it earlier.

Third case occurred, as mentioned, at the Petronas Twin Tower. I duly failed the metal detector and the alarm went off. And the security officer duly asked “what do you have with you?” I said “nothing really” and he simply let me go.

I’ve said it before and I’m saying it again: our security is badly lagging. One day, a real terrorist might be tiptoeing right down our nose and pull a real attack unless we buck up.