Categories
Conflict & disaster

[2215] Of Israel is shooting itself in the foot

Israel has always been in the spotlight. But rarely have its actions compelled friendly countries to speak out against it. The assassination in Dubai carried out by the Israeli secret service has hurt its ties with a number of important countries which it maintains good relations with; these countries are angry that their passports were forged by the Israeli secret service. Recent attack on an aid convoy to Gaza by Israeli commandos looks to worsen those relationships even further.

The convoy sought to break the Israeli naval blockade of Gaza and deliver aids to Palestinians there. Faced with a hardened military, I doubted the convoy would be successful. Just months ago, another convoy attempted to deliver aids to Gaza. It failed because Israel simply would not let them in. It is hard to imagine how another convoy would be any more successful than the last.

Due to its limited chance of success, a convoy like this is more of a political maneuver instead of a humanitarian one. Let us be honest. Those on board the convoy are not aid workers. They are activists. Not that it is a bad thing to apply political pressure. It has its uses but it is what it is.

A refusal to let the convoy pass, although unfortunate, is a completely understandable action taken by Israel, even if it is a disagreeable one. To attack the convoy however, is beyond comprehension.

The attack that has left at least ten dead. It is senseless. It is a gross overreaction on the part of Israel.

Israel deserves to be criticized harshly for that. An action should be taken against Israel but realistically, that will not happen.

I do not think this would cause a break in Israeli diplomatic relationship with major countries. But the criticism directed at Israel so far has been quite sharp.

Immediately upon learning of the attack on the convoy, multiple countries like France, Greece, Spain and Sweden have summoned Israeli ambassadors, demanding an explanation. Turkey, one of very few countries with Muslim majority progressive enough to have diplomatic line with its southern neighbor, has recalled its ambassador.

In the background, Israel’s relationship with the US ever since Obama came into the Oval Office has not been as warm as it typically used to be. Down under with respect to the forgery fiasco, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd said, “…Australia would not regard that as the act of a friend“. Australia recently expelled a senior Israeli diplomat involved in the issue. There is popular support for expulsion.

And on Australian TV today, videos of Israeli military storming the convoy boat received front-page treatment. It is on the front-page of the online version of the New York Times and Financial Times. I wonder what this morning dead tree editions will look like.

The result from the attack on the convoy simply cannot be good for Israel. There is already inertia against Israel. The attack adds more momentum in the wrong direction for Israel.

Categories
ASEAN Conflict & disaster

[2208] Of here is to Thailand

A Malaysian diplomat once told me that among the neighbors of Malaysia, Thailand is our closest. He reasoned that despite stark difference in culture, Thailand has never been hostile to Malaysia, unlike Indonesia and the Philippines, which are supposedly our brothers. Thailand even helped Malaysia when the communist waged war against the federation.

And compared to Singapore, the sometimes fierce causeway rivalry is non-existent. He somehow forgot to mention Brunei but that is probably because unlike other neighbors, Brunei is not as important.

In return for Thailand’s reliable friendship, he firmly believes in the territorial integrity of Thailand. He chides Malay irredentism that exists in Malaysia and in southern Thailand.

I am unsure about Thailand being our closest friend, especially after seeing Thaksin Sinawatra in power. I remember that the Thaksin administration looked for a scapegoat in hope to divert attention away from him. He found Malaysia. A very close friend would not do that.

Nevertheless, I truly believe that a stable neighborhood is beneficial for Malaysia. That means stable and developing neighbors. As a regionalist, I believe in European-like integration for Southeast Asia. As such, I am happy that Indonesia has managed to sort its problems out after all these years. In the same vein, I am concerned with the situation in Thailand. Any effort of integration must take Thailand into account. After all, Thailand is the original six members of ASEAN.

A free and fair election is the solution for Thailand. Only a free and fair election will solve the problem of Thailand. Unless there is a free and fair election, a large section of Thai society will continue to question the legitimacy of the government of the day. And really, I find it hard to see how the current government is legitimate, even if the previous Thaksin-connected governments were unconvincing. A new mandate is required.

I was in Bangkok in 2006, just about four months before the military coup took place. I love the city and it breaks my heart to see such a beautiful city becoming a war zone. Streets that I have walked at this very moment have snipers readying to shoot. Protesters are fighting back. Smoke billows.

I do not intend to choose sides here. I do not have the appetite for such debate. In fact, the two sides of the divide do not appeal to me. All I hope all this will be resolved soon.

Here is to Thailand.

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Politics & government

[2193] Of choosing between Iran and the US

The Nuclear Security Summit in Washington D.C. suggests that Malaysia is siding with the United States with respect to the issue of Iran and nuclear proliferation. Apparently, even before the meeting between Prime Minister Najib Razak and President Barack Obama, Petronas, the state petroleum enterprise of Malaysia, has ceased shipping of gasoline to Iran in early March, anticipating an international, or at least a US-led trade sanction on Iran.[1] I say apparent because the Prime Minister claims the report is incorrect, stating it is only a spot sale instead of a stop of some long term contract.[1a] I am unsure what is the truth at the moment.

Notwithstanding the accuracy of the report, I seriously doubt the effectiveness of economic sanctions. I am not a fan of wide-ranging sanction and it is easy for me to rationalize this position.

I am also not a fan of the Iranian government for far too many reasons but if the proposed sanction is as wide ranging as I think it will be — adding gasoline into the list is a big thing — it is likely to hurt ordinary Iranians in Iran more than hurting Ahmadinejad government.

While the possible hardship may provoke popular Iranian sentiment against the Iranian government, such tactic appears too pragmatic — too realpolitik? — for my liking. Furthermore, the large protest immediately after the election in Iran demonstrates how hard it is for such sentiment to prevail.

This thinking of mine is a product of observing both Myanmar and North Korea. What exactly has trade sanction achieved there? Both regimes are still in power. In fact, their policies have hardly changed.

Sanctioning Iran may potentially further isolate Iran like how Myanmar and North Korea have been isolated without any real success in achieving the expressed goal of the sanction.

This has not even considered the fact that for the sanction to work — work in the sense that Iran will not be able to get its supplies from alternative source — the whole world must work together. A sanction by only the US and its allies will benefit others who refuse to participate, at the expense of countries like Malaysia. China for instance is dragging its feet in joining such sanction. If it refuses, the US-led sanction will be worthless.[3]

Despite this, I do appreciate Malaysia’s position and the reality on the ground. Malaysia has a lot more to gain by cooperating with the US than with Iran. Total trade between Malaysia and the US far exceeds that between Malaysia and Iran. Thus, I personally rather have Malaysia be diplomatically closer to the US than with Iran. I for one support better relationship with the US although, I can agree with Tunku Aziz that it should not be done “at any cost”.[4]

Still, ideally, I would prefer to have Malaysia to work with both the US and Iran. To have to choose between the two is an unfortunate choice to have.

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

[1] — Petronas, the Malaysian state oil company, said on Thursday it had stopped selling petrol to Iran. The move follows growing pressure from the US to shut off Tehran’s access to refined oil products.

The company, which is a long-term supplier of Iran, said it had not shipped petrol to Iranian ports since the middle of March. Petronas refused to give any further details on its decision to put an end to sales. [Petronas halts petrol sale to Iran. Kevin Brown. Financial Times. April 15 2010]

[1a] — NEW YORK, April 17 — Foreign news reports quoting Datuk Seri Najib Razak as saying that Malaysia had cut off gasoline supplies to Iran are incorrect, the prime minister said.

The prime minister said Petronas was involved in a spot sale to Iran in mid-March under a third party deal but since then there had been no requests. [Report On Gasoline Cut To Iran Incorrect, Says Najib. Tham Choy Lin. Bernama. April 17 2010]

[2] — Petronas gave no reason for the pullout but an industry source in Dubai said the company wanted to safeguard its business exposure in the United States.

On Monday, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib and US President Barack Obama agreed on the importance of Iran strictly abiding by its obligation under international nuclear non-proliferation pacts. [Petronas halts fuel sales to Iran as sanctions loom. Reuters via The Malaysian Insider. April 15 2010]

[3] — Companies around the globe have been reducing ties with Iran ahead of possible new U.N. sanctions against Tehran’s controversial nuclear program. But a Chinese-owned company is taking a different approach on trade with Iran.

Traders from Singapore say China’s Sinopec oil company is sending more than 200,000 barrels of gasoline to Iran. The move comes as more and more Western nations have cut or reduced business with the Islamic Republic fearing international sanctions. [Chinese Companies Pursue ‘Talk Now, Invest Later’ With Iran. Carla Babb. Voice of America. April 16 2010]

[4] — [The cost of Malaysia-US relations. Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim. The Malaysian Insider. April 17 2010]

Categories
Conflict & disaster History & heritage Photography

[2161] Of thank you Australia

I have always loved war memorials. I have been to the Tugu Negara in Kuala Lumpur multiple of times. When I was in Washington D.C. for a very short stay, I visited the war memorials there. Likewise in Sydney and Melbourne. The reason for my love for war memorials is not because that I glorify wars. Rather, it is closely related to my love of history.

While I do think wars sometimes are necessary, especially when liberty is under attack to make wars a serious option for libertarians, I do not cherish the thoughts of its necessity. Wars are never pretty but the wars that Malaysia went through, notably against Japanese imperialism during World War II, against communist terrorism for a good part of the country’s history and against attempt of invasion by Indonesia during the formation of Malaysian federation, were certainly wars that could not be avoided in terms of preservation of liberty.

Australia is one of several countries which have dedicated its men and women to the defense of Malaysia or its current components prior to 1963. Malaysia won the wars because of countries like Australia.

Australia remembers this in Sydney in form of the Anzac War Memorial…

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

…and in Melbourne in form of the Shrine of Remembrance:

Some rights reserved. By Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams.

Belated maybe, but I say thank you nonetheless. It has been a fruitful alliance.

Categories
Conflict & disaster Economics

[2150] Of aid and logistical challenges for Haitian earthquake victims

When the gods battle in Malaysia, the gods forgot Haiti.

As always, the affairs of men are too important to be left in the hands of the gods. Christian conservative Pat Robertson may disagree. Instead, he thinks god wants Haiti to suffer because Haitians made a pact with the devil.[1] Ah, the glory of god.

Thank goodness for the reasonable and capable Bill Clinton!

Former President Bill Clinton yesterday spoke of the need to send cash to Haiti instead of items like food and blankets.

[youtube]W6H2hnGaUbk[/youtube]

He reasoned that in Haiti now, there is simply no logistical capability to handle various items from abroad in huge quantity. Haiti’s principle airport inability to cope with the volume of aid material is one evidence of that.[2] With an earthquake that devastating, it is probably a prudent to assume that transportation infrastructure in the country’s capital — a major population center located too close to the epicenter of a major earthquake  — is unreliable now.

In economics, cash aid is the best kind of aid because only the persons on the ground know how the money should be spent, especially when compared to some kind-hearted donors living abroad. It is a case of imperfect information.

That statement is made barring the issue of corruption, which is a major motivation behind the need of material aid.

The probability of abuse of material aid is lower than the likelihood of cash aid abuse. This does not mean that there can be no abuse with material aid — somebody may get all the material aid and start selling them when it should be free— but in comparison, material aid does better than cash aid in terms of abuse prevention. Due to this as well as the horrible record of the government of Myanmar, I advocated material aid to the victims of Nargis back in 2008.

I am ignorant of Haitian politics but Haiti is located not so far away from Myanmar in Transparency International’s 2009 Corruption Perception Index.[3] It is classified as above Myanmar but really but comparison to Myanmar is not much of a comparison. Corruption is a serious there.

I have a lot of respect of former President Bill Clinton. He is the US President I respect the most out of Obama, the Bushes and him. When he said something, I would think twice before disagreeing with him. Indeed, as a libertarian, I should be agreeing with Clinton on his assertion of the superiority of cash aid. And sending money is definitely easier than sending material aid. Yet, I have trouble accepting his advice that cash aid is better.

Perhaps, as an UN envoy to Haiti, as well as a person that has been to Haiti, he knows more than me. His knowledge might not be as good as the victims themselves but it is likely better than mine who lives two oceans across from Haiti.

Still, what good is cash when everything is destroyed?

The economy may rebuild and spontaneous order will establish itself during this chaos but as Clinton said himself, there is no logistical capability to handle the kind of volume of aid material in Haiti at the moment. Okay but will local production be able to match the heightened demand for food, blanket, etc.?

I doubt so.

Even if local production is able to do so, would the logistics be able to cope to the traffic of goods? Would local production be able to produce everything autarkically?

Clinton is right. There is no logistical capability in Haiti. But I think that problem adversely affects the effectiveness of both cash and material aids. I am not saying aid should not be sent at all. What I am saying is that the problem with logistics might not impact the relative desirability between both types of aid by too much.

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

[1] — American televangelist Pat Robertson has blamed the devastating earthquake in Haiti on a pact between the impoverished nation’s founders and the devil.

It is feared that up to 100,000 people may have lost their lives when the magnitude 7.0 earthquake flattened massive areas of the capital Port-au-Prince yesterday.

Speaking on his television program The 700 Club, Mr Robertson said the pact happened “a long time ago in Haiti”. [Haiti disaster blamed on pact with devil. ABC News. January 14 2010]

[2] — International relief to quake-devastated Haiti was reduced to a trickle this morning after the capital’s airport was overwhelmed by a sudden influx of aid planes, as the country’s President said 7,000 victims had already been buried in a mass grave. [Bottleneck paralyses Haiti relief efforts. Kim Landers. Craig McMurtrie. et al. ABC News. January 15 2010]

[3] — See [Corruption Perception Index at Wikipedia. Accessed January 15 2010]