Category: Conflict & disaster

Categories
Conflict & disaster Liberty

[2378] To impress, support tyranny

It is quite understandable why Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak wants to impress King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is an important country to Malaysia. It is the largest oil exporter in the world. It is the leader of the Muslim world by default, for better or for worse.

But when the Prime Minister decided to offer military assistance to Bahrain and back the roles Saudi Arabia had played over the course of the Arab Spring,[1] that was just a little bit too much.

The government of Bahrain has suppressed unarmed protesters with brutality. Saudi Arabia aided Bahrain in suppressing demand for democratic change, fearing the democratic change that began in Tunisia and Egpyt would spread at the expense of autocratic rulers. Najib said those efforts by Saudi Arabia were noble.

Shame.

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

[1] — KUALA LUMPUR: Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak says the country is willing to send peacekeepers to help “de-escalate tension” in Bahrain while backing Saudi Arabia’s role in resolving regional unrest.

Bahraini authorities in the kingdom ruled by a Sunni dynasty have attempted to curb violent protests in recent months inspired by uprisings that toppled Egypt’s and Tunisia’s presidents.

“Malaysia stands ready to contribute peacekeepers to the Kingdom of Bahrain, if invited to do so by the Bahraini leadership,” Najib said in a statement on Friday following a meeting with Saudi Arabian monarch King Abdullah in Riyadh.

 

 

 

“Malaysia will consider it a great honour to offer assistance in this noble effort.” [AFP. Malaysia pledges to help Bahrain. New Straits Times. May 15 2011]

Categories
Conflict & disaster Politics & government

[2356] A dead Osama means dead Republicans

President Obama has just announced that Osama Bin Laden is dead.  I am sure there will be a lot of discussions on the matter, of how it will affect relationship with the Muslim world, of how this will affect military operation in Pakistan and many others.

One question I want to explore is its potential effect on the 2012 Presidential election.

This is a huge achievement for the Obama administration for one reason: by choice or by accident, the Republicans made Bin Laden the center of their administration and they failed to close the issue it satisfactorily. President Bush was positioned as a war president and I remember during the 2004 election when I was in Ann Arbor, the Republicans relentlessly attacked the Democrats for being soft on War on Terror. The Republicans put themselves as the only party that could lead the US in time of war.

In the end, Bin Laden was the political object of the war, regardless of his strategic value. Yet, four years later, eight years later, he was nowhere in sight, still roaming the mountains of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Hence, the Republican administration under Bush failed politically.

Now that Bin Laden has been killed by the US military, the objective has been achieved. And was achieved by a Democrat administration.

For a party that is traditionally seen as the one with the experience and the backbone in terms of foreign policy, this cannot be good for the Republicans of 2012. Surely, among the pro-war groups that centered its motive around the need to avenge, the Democrats are the heroes, not the Republicans.

As security concerns slowly retreat into the background and merge with various political noise, so too the likelihood of us seeing a Republican President in 2012.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Environment

[2332] Sendai and Fukushima are not in Malaysia

Malaysia intends to have an operational nuclear power plant by 2021. Multiple individuals and groups oppose the plan. The opposition is based on multiple legitimate concerns. I believe the biggest fear is the chances of a nuclear meltdown. Chernobyl and the Three Mile Island accident are two examples popularly cited to rationalize the fear.  The latest incident around Sendai that included the shutdown of several plants and an explosion in Fukushima is becoming the third example.

It is wrongly becoming a third example.

While the explosion might have led to a meltdown — the latest news reported that the situation is under control now — the explosion itself was caused by a very strong earthquake that is unheard of in Malaysia.

Really, earthquakes in Malaysia hardly deserve the term. Tremors fits the characteristic better and those tremors hardly cause any damage to buildings, if it does at all.

The very limited possibility — out of this world chances — of Malaysia experiencing similar earthquakes that Japan is used to, and especially to the magnitude that Japan suffered several days ago, negates the nuclear incident in Fukushima from becoming a valid case to back anti-nuclear power position in Malaysia. There are many others examples to cite from, but Sendai is just not one of them.

Sendai and Fukushima are just not a precautionary tale for Malaysia. Anyone who thinks so deserves to be accused of being unfamiliar with Malaysia. To make a parallel out of the incident is to ignore local circumstances, which are essentially different to that of Japan’s.

Categories
Conflict & disaster

[2327] No to foreign military intervention in Libya

There is a civil war in Libya and the one that started it is Muammar Gaddafi. He is a vicious man. The way he violently handled peaceful protests against his government justifies the rebellion that is underway in the country. Between the Gaddafi government and the rebels along with the protesters, I find it impossible not to support the rebellion morally. Despite that, I cannot support any foreign military intervention that sides with the rebellion.

The talk of military intervention gained prominence when there was suggestion to impose a no-fly zone in Libya. The fact that two US warships are approaching the waters off Libya heightens the possibility of US intervention in Libya.[1] It is a relief when US Defense Secretary Robert Gates poured cold water on the suggestion.[2]

At the risk of sounding sadistic, I do not support intervention because I like to see how the civil war will play out in the end. If the rebels and protesters won the war eventually, then it would be relatively easy to justify the new government arising from the popular rebellion. The new government would be formed popularly and organically.

Any foreign military intervention will rob some legitimacy from the new government. Accusation of US imperialism will fly, possibly making the rebellion less popular inside and outside of Libya. Furthermore, in times when the whole Arab world appears to move forward towards a more democratic environment, such external intervention is unhelpful.

Meanwhile, Gaddafi does have some support in Libya, however deluded he is about the level of support he has. There are still people fighting for him. These supporters would definitely try to justify Gaddafi’s so far outrageous claim of foreign intervention in Libya. Having an actual military intervention will hand Gaddafi and his supporters some undeserved moral victory.

Besides, the rebels themselves have stated that they do not want foreign government to intervene.[3]

If the rebels loses, then the Gaddafi government will further lose its legitimacy because the rebellion is seen by many as a popular movement.

And then, there is another issue which I have raised earlier: we cannot fight tyranny everywhere. If intervention is justified in Libya, what about other protests suppressed violently in other part of the world? Myanmar? Iran?

I do not even support any United Nations or any other organization’s peacekeeping mission in Libya, given the current situation. The rebels seem to be winning. An international peacekeeping force by the United Nations would halt progress made by the rebels and protesters, preventing or at least prolonging possible victory that would remove Gaddafi from power and along with it, hopefully his arguably socialistic policies. I do not want any intervention that would increase the likelihood of Gaddafi staying in power. I would support a peacekeeping mission only if Gaddafi has the upper hand.

Until then, I insist all we can do — apart from humanitarian aid — is sit, watch and hope for the best in the Libyan rebels and protesters.

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

[1] — WASHINGTON — A US warship with hundreds of Marines on board headed towards Libya on Tuesday, defense officials said, as US and European allies sought to pile pressure on embattled leader Moamer Khadafi. [US warship headed to Libya: officials. AFP. March 2 2011]

[2] — Military options, such as imposing a no-fly zone to prevent attacks on regime opponents, have consequences that need to be considered carefully, Gates said. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization hasn’t decided on any specific steps. [US signals caution about Libya military intervention. Lachlan Carmichael. AFP. March 3 2011]

[3] — Ghoga said the newly formed council was not contacting foreign governments and did not want them to intervene. [US signals caution about Libya military intervention. Al Jazeera. February 27 2011]

Categories
ASEAN Conflict & disaster Politics & government

[2220] Of Jose Ramos Horta and Indonesia

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

The University hosted President Jose Ramos Horta of East Timor recently and I was lucky enough to get a seat for his speech. After Joseph Stiglitz, the President is the second ever Nobel Prize winner that I have had the opportunity to listen to first hand.

The speech was interesting, but it was not a memorable one. I am unable to recall too many points of the speech.

What I do remember the most is East Timor’s ties with Indonesia.

He is concerned with attempts at punishing Indonesia for past violence in East Timor. He said Indonesia should be given the room to face its own history. The context that Indonesia finds itself in should be understood and taken into account: it at one point came close to repeating the history of the Balkans. That is a painful part of modern Indonesian history. Raising it up would cause old woulds to reopen and ignite an unproductive and divisive debate.

Furthermore, this is not the best time to demand for justice. Such demand at this juncture or in the near future may risk whatever progress, which is a lot, Indonesia is making. He said, such demand would sap energy away from development. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia should not be burdened with an international controversy. The fire of nationalism should not be lighted up.

He believes that as Indonesia matures as a democracy, its society will address it eventually. I definitely think that such approach is better at attaining sustainable peace and good diplomatic relations. Although an exaggerated example, the problem of post-World War I Germany comes to mind with respect to effort to punish Indonesia. Keynes was right about Germany and the current President of East Timor may be right about Indonesia.

In other words, it is in East Timor’s interest to have Indonesia focused on its developmental agenda.

He also made it clear that any attempt to set up a tribunal to punish Indonesia would not get the support of East Timor.

And I thought, those were wise words. And I am on board.