Let me find my courage in that little box of mine, somewhere.
Have you found yours yet?
Categories
Category: Liberty
In the aftermath of the hijacking of two MISC vessels off the coast of Somalia, the Malaysian Royal Navy has dispatched two war vessels to the area.[0] The military has indicated that the two vessels will not intervene in the case but the ships are there to monitor the situation and protect other Malaysian interest around the area, at least for now.[1][2] Does this signal a greater willingness for Malaysia to flex its arms in the name of security in international waters far beyond Malaysian borders?
I am more interested in asking whether Malaysia should flex its arms at all.
The answer is, uncomfortably, I do not know. I say uncomfortably because I am unclear about the role of government in this issue.
The idea of small or limited government is based on the idea that the existence of a government is only to guarantee individual liberty of its citizens. The predicate necessarily limit the role of guardian of individual liberty to that if its citizens. Under this idea, sadly, tyranny abroad is no responsible of the state unless such tyranny clearly threatens the society which the state is answerable to.
In that sense, I am a dovish libertarians and this is how I rationalize my opposition to the invasion of Iraq by the United States and its allies. In a discourse with hawkish libertarian, I have made it clear that I have no problem with unilateralism because I firmly believe in non-aggression theorem. Aggression will be met with aggression and there is no question in that. My opposition to the invasion of Iraq is the lack of credible threat which Saddam Hussein presented to the United States or other states, not unilateralism though perhaps in the past, I have cited unilateralism as a reason.
The fact that Saddam Hussein ruled despicably over the citizens of Iraq is deplorable but it remains that well being of citizens of Iraq is not the responsibility of other states. Unless, of course, we are prepared to have a world police to preserve individual liberty all over the world.
Yet, the idea of a world police does not sound too libertarian.
I fully comprehend the moral implication of my position and the more hawkish libertarians reserve no mercy in assailing my relatively dovish position. Yet, until I have found a convincing argument for a more hawkish position, I shall remain a dove.
Before I digress further, the hijacks off the Somali waters clearly threaten individual liberty of citizens of our state. Due to the functions of government under libertarian tradition, the state has to intervene to ensure the safety of the victims, which are citizens of our state.
But, do we need the state? Why do we not just let the employer of the victims, MISC, to act deal directly with the hijackers in all the glory of Coase Theorem? In the case that MISC intends to keep this issue private, why not let it?
But does a decision of a private firm to deal with the issue directly without intervention from the state absolve the responsibility of a libertarian state to preserve the individual liberty of its citizens which are also the employees of the firm?
The whole mess could be bypassed if MISC request for aid from the state. If such request is made, then military intervention from the state will be justified.
Where does this lead?
Any military action by our state in this case may threaten the sovereignty of another state. Does this mean war?
If it is, it would be a righteous war.
Then again, would it not be silly to go to war just because of two ships?
The problem presented by this problem must truly be appreciated because acceptance of this line of thought necessarily means agreeing to various military actions around the world. Two examples would be the Turkish incursion into northern Iraq[3] and the Israeli action against Lebanon.[4] Even the United States would have ra oute to attack Pakistan in order to eliminate threats presented by Al Qaeda.[5]
We of course could request for permission to act freely but responsibility within the territory of those states but is there a government, for instance, in Somalia to start with?
The last thing we want is to get entangled in their civil war. Malaysia under a United Nations peacekeeping mission has a painful experience in Somalia and I think some Somalis would remember the Malaysian role in back in 1993.[6]
[0] — Malaysia will send two naval vessels to the Gulf of Aden after pirates hijacked two tankers operated by MISC Bhd., the country’s largest shipping line, in less than a fortnight. [No military ops yet to free crew. Bloomberg. September 3 2008]
[1] — “We sent two warships there (the Gulf of Aden) last Saturday but only to monitor the situation,” he said. [No military ops yet to free crew. The Star. September 3 2008]
[2] — “We sent two warships there (the Gulf of Aden) last Saturday but only to monitor the situation,” he said. [Najib: We need to protect four other vessels sailing in the area. The Star. September 3 2008]
[3] — ISTANBUL, Oct. 9 — Turkey took a step toward a military operation in Iraq on Tuesday, as its top political and military leaders issued a statement authorizing troops to cross the Iraq border to eliminate separatist Kurdish rebel camps in the northern region. [Turkey Authorizes Troops to Enter Iraq to Fight Rebels. New York Times. October 10 2007]
[4] — See the 2006 Lebanon War. Accessed September 3 2008.
[5] — WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama said on Wednesday the United States must be willing to strike al Qaeda targets inside Pakistan, adopting a tough tone after a chief rival accused him of naivete in foreign policy. [Turkey Authorizes Troops to Enter Iraq to Fight Rebels. Reuters. August 1 2007]
[6] — See the Battle of Mogadishu at Wikipedia. Accessed September 3 2008.
I was surprised to discover that Malaysia has not recognized Kosovo as a sovereign state, despite the early enthusiasm exhibited by the Abdullah administration,
Back in February 2008, a statement by the Foreign Ministry of Malaysia read “Malaysia hopes the declaration of independence fulfils the aspiration of the people of Kosovo to decide their own future and ensure the rights of all to live in peace, freedom and stability“. In the same statement, Malaysia stated that it welcomed the independence of Kosovo.[1]
As mentioned previously, such recognition maybe problematic for Malaysia, especially when there are so many separatist movements around in the world. Just outside the door step of Malaysia lay Pattani, Mindanao and Palawan, among others. Move to recognize Kosovo could be viewed with suspicion by the neighbors of Malaysia. The latest Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia could also offer a challenge to effort to keep Malaysian foreign policy consistent if Malaysia recognized Kosovo.
Well, it seems that problem of consistency is no more of an issue as Malaysia has decided to be agnostic to the Kosovo question and possibly return to its policy of non-interference. The Malaysian ambassador to Serbia Saw Ching Hong expects Malaysia to support Serbian effort to refer the Kosovar unilateral declaration of independence to the International Court of Justice.[2]
But truly, why would the Foreign Minister issue such statement when it has no intention to recognize Kosovo outright?
Due to the statement, it caused a misunderstanding that led Kosovo to list Malaysia as one of the countries which recognize it.[3] I myself had concluded that the Kosovar declaration of independence was recognized by Malaysia. Eight months later, I learned that the statement was misleading.
Malaysia’s current position surrounding Kosovo is murky. It has to be noted that the opinion of the ambassador is not the official position of Malaysia. Or at least, I have yet to read any. Prior to the Malaysian ambassador’s statement, Serbia claimed that Malaysia had frozen the recognition process. Kosovo claimed otherwise.[4]
I think it is time for the Ministry to clarify the Malaysian position once and for all.
[1] — Malaysia said Wednesday it welcomed Kosovo’s independence from Serbia which was unilaterally announced Sunday. [Malaysia welcomes Kosovo’s independence. Kyodo. February 25 2008]
[2] — BELGRADE — The Malaysian ambassador expects his country will back Serbia’s ICJ initiative at the UN General Assembly. [Ambassador: Malaysia to back ICJ initiative. B92. August 27 2008]
[3] — Kosovo declared independence on February 17, and has been recognised by 45 countries.Pristina initially included Malaysia in the recognition list, but it turned out that this was a misunderstanding; the Asian country had only welcomed Kosovo’s independence. [Malaysia Still Mulling Kosovo Recognition. Balkan Insight. August 14 2008]
[4] — Mansor, presenting the stance of his government, during the meeting with President Sejdiu said that there are no changes to the Malaysian stance towards Kosovo, disproving the claim of Serb Foreign Minister, Vuk Jeremiq, who on Tuesday announced that “Malaysia has frozen the recognition process of Kosovo. [Malaysia refutes Serbia claims of Kosovo recognition freeze. New Kosova Report. August 15 2008]
Categories
[1758] Of ubi libertas ibi patria
Home is where liberty is.
It is hard for a person to affirm his conviction to freedom until his belief has been challenged and then came out unconvinced of any need to silent dissenting others. It is based on this premise that I celebrate diversity.
My celebration of diversity must not be construed as an advocate for multiculturalism, where the state embarks on active policy encouraging diversity. The policy of active promotion of multicultural society goes against organic processes, which is closely associated to the idea of spontaneous order.
A peaceful multicultural society needs to have tolerance embedded in it and it is highly likely that more often than not, only organic processes are capable of bringing about tolerance of differences organically. In contrast, multiculturalism inorganically introduces or enforces multicultural idea into a society that may or not may be ready for diverse society or even a change in the makeup of the society. There is an element of coercion in multiculturalism.
Inorganic processes are applied to hasten processes. The high rate of change however gives individuals little opportunity to adapt. With multiculturalism, it is a guaranteed fact that there will be individuals rebelling against it. When that happened, a multicultural society resulting from multiculturalism will face challenges which including excessive xenophobia.
Nobody with liberty in his mind has the right to change a society from the top, forcing individuals to in live an environment he does not wish to be in. Any change can only be real and sustainable if it comes from the bottom in which the individuals themselves introduce the change. Organic change contrary to inorganic one allows adaptation and evolution of outlook and attitude though admittedly, the changes come only painfully slow.
For this reason, policy of multiculturalism has to be rejected.
It has to be understood that the term “multicultural society” describes the state of a society while “multiculturalism” is a set of policies encouraging the inorganic creation of multicultural society. Moreover, multicultural society can exist without multiculturalism through organic processes.
Therefore, my rejection of multiculturalism does not translate into rejection of multicultural society. Indeed, I cherish multicultural society for the diversity it brings.
To a large extent, individuals are shaped by experience. Each experience gives rise to unique worldviews which in turn affect a person’s thoughts and actions.
A diverse society is exactly diverse because of each member of the society underwent different path to reach wherever they are at the moment. This naturally gives rise to difference in opinion.
For those professing belief in liberty, a multicultural society or more generally a diverse society offers an opportunity to challenge one’s belief in liberty. It offers an opportunity to prove one’s conviction in liberty. It is only in a diverse society, especially in a realm of intellectual diversity, opinion allergic to each other could exist and advocated for with high intensity and frequency. Such society is the perfect environment for training in freedom.
A true believer of liberty would not initiate any kind of coercion to silent the others due to difference in opinion, even in the heat of an argument. Until one passes that test, a person can never truly discover whether the person believes in liberty.