Categories
Conflict & disaster Society

[2473] A world without Iraq

I was almost late for my morning history class. I ran as fast as I could while trying to keep my balance on ice and snow. By the time I entered the classroom, I was gasping for air. For the not very athletic me, it was not easy to breathe hard during a cruel Michigan winter. As I settled in my seat thinking my heart was about to explode and my lungs collapsing, the instructor said, “Today will be about what ifs. What if you were early?”

The class burst into laughter at my expense.

After several minutes of friendly pokes, the instructor began to share his plan for the day. “But seriously, today will be about what ifs.” What if Venice and other cities had not monopolized the spice trade? What if old European powers were unsuccessful at colonizing Asia? What if Dien Bien Phu did not happen? What if the United States had not entered the Second World War? There were many more what ifs.

We were discussing colonialism in Asia and we were exploring the importance of certain events by trying to imagine an alternative history where those events did not occur. It required a broad understanding of history.

It also required all of us in the class to do our voluminous readings. A lot of us, being freshmen and still patting ourselves on our backs for getting into a storied school, did not finish our reading. We gave it a stab anyway. We had enough imagination to run wild.

That old memory reran in my mind as President Barack Obama finally, for better or for worse, fulfilled one of his election promises. The US is officially withdrawing from Iraq after more than eight years since the invasion that toppled the former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

The withdrawal ceremony was being telecast ”live” on CNN. As I sat in my chair listening to Leon Panetta making his speech, my mind wandered to Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and the rest of the Arab world. Remembering my freshman lesson, I asked myself, ”What if the US had not invaded Iraq back in 2003?” Would Saddam Hussein’s regime have become a victim of the Arab Spring?

We will never know but nobody can say that would have been impossible. Whether a person is supportive of the war or vehemently rejects the invasion, he or she cannot deny that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator.

That makes his removal desirable to some extent. If the 2003 invasion was legitimate in some ways, many in the anti-war camp would support or at least not reject the invasion. If Saddam Hussein was toppled organically by Iraqis just like how Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi and Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali were toppled, many more would support the regime change.

An Arab Spring for Iraq would have been ideal. It would have removed a dictator without causing bad blood among various sides. Yes, it would be eight years later but in a time of terrorism and religious extremism, a world without the 2003 invasion of Iraq could have spurred deeper co-operation between the US and those that mattered.

A world without the war would have the US possibly swamped with goodwill of the kind it received in the aftermath of the September 11 attack but soon after squandered in the run-up to the 2003 war.

It could be the case, or it could not. Just as Japan in the Second World War made the colonized natives realize that colonial European powers were not invincible, the US invasion also reminded the Arabs that their dictators were not gods.

Sure, the United States of the 2000s was not Japan of the 1900s that was seriously underestimated first by the Russians and then later all the colonial powers in South-east Asia. Still, what is possible is not always evident until somebody makes it a reality. The US with its unmatched military might removed Saddam Hussein. The US made possible a regime change.

Or — this might sound repulsive, especially for those in the anti-war camp but consider this — the Arab Spring might not have happened without the 2003 invasion.

An alternative reality without the war would have taken away the realization of the possibility, and possibly affected the psyche of the Arabs. What was possible would have remained only one of the possibilities deep in the minds of ordinary men, never to surface to the real world.

A world without the war also would have taken away the anger against the US. The US in many parts of the Middle East and Northern Africa had close relationships with many Arab dictators. The relations were maintained in the name of stability and much to the detriment to the freedom agenda.

The ordinary man in the streets of the Arab world, already with a low opinion of the US, saw the relationship as a constant reminder of how much they disliked their own autocrats. This only added to local frustrations that had nothing to do with the US directly. All that anger and frustration, along with the cumulative effect of all those issues, created a momentum to push history to converge to a point that sparked the Arab Spring.

Without the war, part of the momentum would not have existed. The cumulative anger without the invasion might not have been enough to start the Arab Spring. That sans-Iraq anger might have been just a weak undercurrent, never to surface and threaten the dictators’ expensive boats, rocked gently by the pleasant waves.

There are a lot of other considerations as well. Maybe without the war, the US would have enough money to bail out Europe. Maybe, Obama would not have been elected as the president. Maybe, we would be still swimming in cheap oil. Maybe. Maybe. Who knows, really?

At least we know one part of history is ending. At least we know the next chapter is a whole new world, for whatever it is worth.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved
First published in The Malaysian Insider on December 18 2011.

Categories
Conflict & disaster

[2464] Who takes the KL War Crimes Tribunal seriously?

You and I can sit at a cafe and argue whether former US President George Bush and former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair are guilty of war crimes. We can pass our verdict but we must be out of our minds to think that the verdict is as legitimate as that of a proper court of law. You and I can organize a mock hearing and have all resemblance of a court of law much like the Model United Nations to the actual United Nations, but it is madness to think the make-believe court has any authority. Its ruling is irrelevant and unexecutable.

The Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal and its organizer the Perdana Global Peace Foundation think otherwise.

They set up a court and passed rulings, pretending such action carry any weight. They actually take their business very seriously. The tribunal has everything from real judges to professors and complete with the defense team, which only the heaven knows what locus standi the team has to represent the two former world leaders. What makes the whole show all the more surreal is the exposure local mainstream media and others grant to the theatric.

Perhaps, this is an attempt of vigilantism. Frustrated at the international system, theirs is an effort at setting up a rival avenue for justice.

Vigilantism has its points and if the vigilante court commands influence in the society, it may be of use. In the anarchic Somalia, vigilante Islamic courts mushroomed to provide order and quickly became one of the pillars of the Somalian society. The locals welcomed the authority. There was real value to it.

But the vigilantism of Perdana’s Kuala Lumpur War Tribunal will not get the legitimacy of those in the Horn of Africa. And quite likely, any execution may in fact contravene actual laws.

Most sensible reports mindfully utilized the word symbolic or its synonyms as an adjective describing the Tribunal. Maybe, by emphasizing its symbolism and downplaying the pretension, the Tribunal can gain some gravitas.

But even as a symbol however, the Kuala Lumpur War Tribunal does not inspire much confidence. The Tribunal was created by the Perdana Global Peace Foundation whose chairman is the former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed. He is, of course, the paragon of an independent, credible judiciary. He has the all the credibility in the world to set up the Tribunal. His contributions to the Malaysian judiciary are unforgettable.

Let us pretend that the Tribunal was of consequence. Such pretension will show that if it was, then it would be a kangaroo court. The Foundation already holds prejudicial views against Bush and Blair. And the Foundation is the one that set up the tribunal. Does any one of us really expect anything more than a kangaroo court?

Who really takes the Tribunal seriously?

It is just another farce among farces we encounter everyday.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Personal Society

[2428] How September 11 2001 affected me?

I have told this story many times to friends.

I just woke up from sleep. It was sometime between 8AM and 9AM. My first semester at Michigan. The first or the second week of class. Chemistry class was due at 10AM. Or really, ten after ten. It was Michigan time, you see.

I needed to print some notes and check my email before class. So, I came down from my room and saw a notice on the door of the computing lab at the basement of the Michigan Union. There was a national emergency, it said. The office was closed. I had no idea what the emergency was about.

I logged on the computer, went on Yahoo! and saw a burning World Trade Center. This must be a hoax, I told myself. It was too outrageous to believe.  I dismissed it.

I was young, barely 19, and was still processing what was going on.

I went to class anyway, not wanting to miss anything. I rushed across the Diag, on a possibly clear blue morning.

There was none to be had. The professor was there and the class was a little bit more than half-full, but everybody came to realize something bigger was happening. The Twin Towers had collapsed. Class, dismissed.

Elsewhere, there were talks of repercussion. Friends through emails were warning of backlash against Muslim students. That also included most Malaysian students in the United States. There was fear.

I had heard of stories of xenophobia elsewhere, but I did not suffer from it throughout my 4 years as a Michigan undergraduate. Not ever. Maybe it was the liberal nature of Ann Arbor compared to some other parts of the US, but never once I became a victim of xenophobia.

The weeks and months following the attack formed lasting impression of the US society in my mind. It was one of admiration. There were fierce debates throughout the years about what was right and what was wrong. But the society itself survived the illiberal tidal wave that threatened individual liberty. Coming from a relatively, very much closed society that prevailed in Malaysia then, the societal dynamic of the new world was enticing and refreshing. I was impressed at the US society despite all the criticisms against it.

It was in the US where I found my values.

I have always said that I became a libertarian because of my experience in Michigan. Now, I think I became a civil libertarian because of the September 11 attack. I did not have a label to point at then, but in retrospect, I knew September 11 was the seed for me.

I saw how a free society can regulate itself and overcome fear and distrust. There was little prejudice around even after the attack to completely unravel the argument that a free society will self-destruct, an idea that was prevalent in Malaysia, and maybe still is.

And I saw how freedom needed to be defended from fear and distrust. I saw friends were forced to report to the Department of Homeland Security in Detroit regularly, just because they came from certain countries. Every time I needed to board the plane, the security team would select me for extra screening, just because I am a Malaysia. I took that as racial profiling and I despised that. It was insulting.

That too, strengthened my view on racial discrimination.

I visited New York later in 2002. I visited the site of the World Trade Center. It moved me.

September 11 was not just some event that happened on the other side of the world. It happened on my side of the planet. It deeply was personal.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty

[2415] A legitimate good riddance to Gaddafi

Months ago, the Libyan rebellion appeared to be flattering. There were advances but despite indirect support from several world powers, forces loyal to dictator Muammar Gaddafi were able to defend their position. At one time, the rebels were pushed back to its home city in the far east. That in fact was the last time I truly gave attention to the Libyan conflict, until today.

I woke up today with CNN, the BBC and Al-Jazeera showing live scenes from Tripoli. The rebels are overrunning Gaddafi forces. News are making round that Gaddafi’s sons have been taken under custody by the rebels. This is a piece of wonderful news in time when the Arab Spring itself is turning out into almost a disappointment, and especially in Syria where a massacre is under way. This near victory by the Libyan rebels against the Libyan tyrant is a big encouragement to the participants of the Arab Spring, perhaps provide little pushes needed to keep the flame alive in the whole region.

I know those on the far left of the political spectrum are framing the struggle in Libya as the US against native government. For all their opposition to US “imperialism”, Gaddafi’s tyranny goes unmentioned.

Perhaps it requires no reminder. It should be obvious, but detractors of the Arab Spring allege that behind all this are the US and other western powers. That is not entirely true. It is not true when what matters is considered.

These powers are giving support to the rebellion, but I must add only indirectly. Regardless of the support in Libya, the rebellion is organic in nature just like in Egypt and Tunisia. It is born out of local discontent.

Remember, these western powers were caught by surprise at the intensity and the breadth of the 2011 Arab uprising. The initial responses by Obama, Sarkozy and Cameron to Tunisia and Egypt were inadequate and they were roundly criticized for failing to act against suppression of peaceful protests, fearing western support will make these organic rebellions less legitimate in the eyes of the world and more importantly, the undecided locals. That was probably due to them smarting from past mistakes. That is not exactly the reaction of a global mastermind favored by conspiracy theorists.

In Libya, suppression of peaceful protests has turned the rebellion into armed one. Somebody had to do something. The killing has to stop.

I have voiced my opposition to foreign military intervention, fearing that would rob the legitimacy of the rebellion. That fear on legitimacy did not bear out, and that eliminates my opposition to intervention. Even so, intervention has been limited to the enforcement of no-fly zone, endorsed by the United Nations for whatever it worth. And clearly, the UN-sanctioned foreign intervention was done out of reluctance: the US military was hesitant in participate in another struggle when its forces are stretched thin.

One disappointment that I have is these powers response to the discontent in Bahrain. The Bahraini government and Saudi Arabia were given a free hand to suppress non-violent protest over there. There is hypocrisy in US policy, sure.

But again, regardless of the hypocrisy, let it be reminded that many of these uprising is organic. It has native origin, not foreign. That is what important.

If the revolution is complete, when it is complete, then the next agenda should be about sustaining a democratic Libya. Not just a democratic Libya, but a Libya that is different from Gaddafi’s tyrannical socialist republic. A Libya that respects and protects its citizens’ individual rights.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Economics Liberty

[2402] The cost to the Beijing development model

The rapid and successful economic development of China so far has been presented as the superiority of central planning over the approach taken, for example, by India. It is the Beijing development model as some would say. Authoritarian top-down approach gets things done, unlike the messy democratic means from the bottom up. All those criticisms weigh things down needlessly.

The recent high-speed train disaster that killed nearly 40 persons[1] should give advocates of the authoritarian approach a considerable pause the next time they try to sell the Beijing model over democratic ones. Reports are coming out that these infrastructure projects were rushed for the 90th anniversary of the Communist Party.[2] Results do not look good for the Chinese government.

The Beijing way of doing things has become controversial, especially after the accident.

How much of infrastructure projects all around China suffer from abuse of power or corruption in general? Was the accident a symptom of a rotten system?

Between authoritarian and democratic states, the former lacks real mechanism to make the state accountable. It will be hard to answer the questions even in democratic states, much less in ones like China’s.

Typical of authoritarian governments, the Chinese government is trying to muzzle investigations into the incident.[3] This is amid angry allegations of corruption with respect to these projects and specifically, the high-speed train system. That is an example how there is little accountability in China. Any reprimand is for public show only. Such reprimands have proven to be inconsequential. In Malaysian parlance, small fish.

Even before the train disaster, the system was already suffering from service interruptions, barely weeks after its official opening. Something must be wrong when so many glitches happened so frequently so soon.

Something is rotten in the state of China. That rottenness is the cost of the authoritarian model. There is a cost to absence of check and balance, of accountability, of freedom. It is a shame somebody has to die to learn that.

While India suffered from embarrassing criticisms before and during the last Commonwealth Games due to perhaps their incompetence in meeting deadlines, at least we knew the problems before it was too late. Remedies were taken. For China, there is a guessing game: which one is the facade and which one is real. As the train disaster showed, we found out about the rotten apples way too late.

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

[1] — BEIJING—The first high-speed train passed through the tracks where a deadly train collision occurred in eastern China, as authorities sought to soothe public concern over safety and the handling of the accident as well as jitters about the future of its prized high-speed rail system. [Norihiko Shirouzu. Beijing Seeks to Soothe Train Jitters. Wall Street Journal. July 26 2011]

[2] — China’s high-speed rail line between Beijing and Shanghai has been beset by glitches in the two weeks since it opened to great fanfare on the eve of the Chinese Communist Party’s 90th anniversary celebration. [David Pierson. China’s high-speed rail glitches: Racing to make errors?. Los Angeles Times. July 16 2011]

[3] — BEIJING — China has banned local journalists from investigating the cause of a deadly high-speed train crash that has triggered public outrage and raised questions over safety, reports said Tuesday. [Allison Jackson. China seeks to muzzle reporting on train crash. AFP. July 26 2011]