Categories
Economics History & heritage

[1347] Of Kant’s perpetual peace

Immanuel Kant wrote that free trade creates perpetual peace. Under the mercantilist era which he had lived in, the truth behind such idea cannot be any clearer.

Mercantilism holds that trade is a zero-sum game with constant volume of global trade. As such, the most prosperous country is the country with the most supply of capital. To a mercantilist, this means export should be encouraged while import should be actively discouraged. One may recognize this as some sort of protectionism.

In a world dominated by mercantilists, low volume of trade would be a norm as each and every mercantilist seeks to accumulate vast amount of capital. This is so because everybody refrains from buying anything from anybody. Trade meanwhile is dependent on the act of buying and selling; without either one, there can be no trade. Mercantilism necessarily limits resources any mercantilist state could muster to only those found within its boundaries.

Individuals demand so many things and not all of those things could be obtained locally. Without trade, demand would be unfulfilled, turning life duller than it should be. Mercantilists of the past realized this and sought to solve it by expanding its boundaries; they internalized resources into their boundaries. In doing so, mercantilists eliminated the need for import and possibly maintained a positive trade balance. This requirement for expansion is one of many factors that fueled colonialism and wars in the past.

As demand becomes more sophisticated, it becomes impossible for local industry to satisfy local demand in the absence of trade. Boundaries of mercantilist states thus require further expansion to internalize more resources to satisfy greater demand. In the end translates into one conclusion: the biggest state, all else being equal, would have the greatest amount of resources. Britain of old, the great mercantilist state, was well on its way to be the largest empire the world has ever seen.

Alas, the Earth is only so big. Continuous expansion eventually will bring mercantilists to each other door step and finally, in absence of trade, the only way to obtain what a mercantilist state needs is by expanding its boundaries into other states’ borders. This typically means war and wars involving mercantilist states did happen from the 16th to the 18th century.

The madness brought by mercantilism was only suppressed after the rationale of trade overwhelmed the prevailing thinking in the late 18th century. Through trade, various states can obtain what it requires without the need to expand its boundaries, without going to war. Sooner or later, trading states will depend on each other to achieve prosperity. To quote Kant:

By virtue of their mutual interest does nature unite people against violence and war… the spirit of trade cannot coexist with war, and sooner or later this spirit dominates every people. For among all those powers… that belong to a nation, financial power may be the most reliable in forcing nations to pursue the noble cause of peace… and wherever in the world war threatens to break out, they will try to head it off through mediation, just as if they were permanently leagued for this purpose.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[1346] Of sad pragmatism for communal lines-cutting criticisms

An honest criticism is the first step towards identifying and subsequently, rectifying mistakes. In a society sensitive to ethnic issues such as in Malaysia, such honest criticism may be hard to make when it crosses ethnic lines. By crossing, I mean to say the critic and the criticized belong to different communities. Too often, innocent criticisms that cut communal boundaries are taken as acts close to racism if not racism itself, with the concept of non-interference is applied thoroughly.

That is an unfortunate tendency which may show that how far a person is from a racialist worldview. I suspect the misperception of an honest criticism as something racial in nature is closely related to a person’s inability to take criticism as well as personal bias.

When criticized, instead accepting the criticism attributing as directed towards his own mistake, he seeks to attribute such criticism to something unrelated to the mistake, thus putting the criticism in a way that it might be unjustified. In doing so, he changes the subject from honest criticism to something else. For a criticism that cuts communal barriers, if the criticized person views his world through communal lens, race or other communal-identifying factors become the obvious candidate for the purpose of diversion.

Sometimes, honest misunderstanding may occur but even then, there must be a basis for such misunderstanding. I am inclined to believe that certain misunderstanding is based on a person’s consciousness of communal-identifying factors, possibly placing too much emphasize on race, etc rather than the criticism on the mistake itself. In this case, when such criticism is made, the first thing that comes to his mind is skin color, etc — which is irrelevant to honest criticism — instead of the beef of the criticism itself.

In many cases, the concept of non-interference is held with utmost jealousy by communities. Any criticism coming from outside a community would be deemed as interference and only criticism coming from inside the community could be taken as sometimes legitimate. I could offer a few instances as examples to illustrate my point. Religious conservative Muslims in Malaysia do have problems having non-Muslims to criticize the status of religious freedom within Muslim Malaysian community. Another is the example was when EU ambassador to Malaysia, Thierry Rommel criticized Malaysian discriminatory economic policies. Malaysian political leaders in turn told the EU to stop meddling in Malaysian affairs.

These two possible causes do not make an exhaustive list but they are particularly important to recognize in politics. For a society that places too much political correctness rather than truth, along with one’s the ability to divert attention as mentioned earlier, any poor critic would find himself being unfairly accused of being a racist by too many people whom are particularly adept at coming up with conclusions only after piercing any issue only skin deep. In the end, if the critic does not have the stomach to fight on active or passive misconception, the mistake which the critic had pointed out would be drowned, forgotten and left uncorrected.

For this reason, in a society as diverse as Malaysia, it is perhaps desirable for any legitimate criticism to be kept inside a community, where the critics and the criticized belong to the same community. Through this, at least, communal issues could not be used to divert attention. More importantly, pragmatically speaking, is that any for legitimate politically-related criticism is to be made, it is good to have partners with different background. When there is communal difference between the would-be critic and the would-be criticized, the critic would be better off to find a partner to eliminate the communal difference and have the partner to criticize would-be criticized.

This is a sad conclusion that appeals to pragmatism, if the assumptions are true. It is sad because the art of criticism itself becomes the victim of racism, trying to avoid the diversion the non-interference policy grants. It is sad for the highest moral demands honest criticisms against all wrongs, regardless whether if it cuts communal lines.

Categories
Liberty

[1345] Of MCCBCHS and free speech

Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism (MCCBCHS) wanted what?

On the front page on Tuesday, the daily printed a picture of Jesus Christ holding a cigarette in one hand and a canned drink (which looked like beer) in the other with the quote: “If a person repents his mistakes, heaven awaits him.”

Meanwhile, the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism has urged the authorities to take action against the paper for hurting the feelings of the Christian community in the country. [Tamil daily says sorry over Jesus pic. The Star. August 23 2007]

If it wants to criticize the paper, go ahead but for MCCBCHS to urge the authority to take action against the paper is for it to forfeit its moral authority to advocate freedom. At the moment, it might be the case that MCCBCHS is only interested in freedom whenever it is in their convenience. That does not differ from the position of religious conservative Muslims.

The picture however was published by mistake:

S.M. Periasamy, general manager of the Tamil-language Makkal Osai, told The Associated Press that the daily published the controversial photo by mistake. [Malaysian paper apologizes for picture of Jesus holding cigarette. International Herald Tribune. August 23 2007]

If it is a genuine mistake, it is up to the paper itself to punish the responsible staff.

Categories
Liberty Politics & government Society

[1344] Of fret not of Abdullah Gul

Abdullah Gul is almost certain to be the next President of Turkey. Gul’s Islamist past however is causing great consternation among Turkish secularists. They had rallied impressive public dissent that ultimately failed in the face of democracy. The defeat has further caused the secularists distress. I however believe Turkish secularists are worrying too much and harping on ridiculous issues. They are several reasons why that is so.

First and foremost is Turkey’s eagerness to join the European Union. While there are opposition to Turkey’s accession into the regional grouping, there are those that would look forward to sit together with Turkey as equal in the EU. The fact that Turkey is a secular country is one of few factors that enable such support to exist. As long as Turkey aspires to become part of EU, there is a strong reason to believe that Gul, a firm EU supporter, will work to keep Turkey secular.

Gul himself has been instrumental in booting fundamentalists and attracting moderates, as mentioned by an article at The Economist:

Mr Gul says that, as president, he will reach out to all Turks and that he will remain loyal to the secular tenets of the constitution. His four years as foreign minister leave little room for doubt. He was the driving force behind the many reforms that persuaded European Union leaders to open long delayed membership talks with Turkey in 2005. And it was Mr Gul who engineered the defection of fellow moderates from the overtly Islamist Welfare Party which was bullied out of office by the generals in 1997. [Ready to take office. The Economist. August 21 2007]

This shows that Gul is flexible and accommodating. Furthermore, Gul has promised his critics that he will adhere to the tenets of Turkish secularism:

Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul has pledged to protect and strengthen the country’s secular principles if he succeeds in a fresh presidential bid. [Turkey’s Gul vows secular agenda. BBC News. August 14 2007]

While I do not subscribe to Turkish secularism due to its statism as well as illiberalness, that should be of some value and comfort to local secularists.

And then, there is issue surrounding the attire of Abdullah Gul’s wife. Turkish secularists are harping at the fact the she wears Islamic headscarf but surely, such issue is too silly to be a major reason why Gul should not be the President of Turkey. While Turkey does have a law against the wearing of such headscarf at civic spaces, it is not Gul himself that is wearing that headscarf. What the secularists are doing is really a logical fallacy: guilt by association. Most of all, I fail to see how his wife’s attire could affect his ability to function as the President of Turkey.

What the secularists should do now is to fully support Turkey’s accession into the EU. Through this, the secularists could hold AKP, the party which Gul is a member, at ransom.

And for many liberals like me, Turkish accession into EU is the ticket to liberalize Turkey away from its narrow nationalistic sentiment. AKP, despite being cited as an Islamist party, is already embarking into that direction. On top of that, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has tried hard to throw away its Islamist image, favoring a more centrist one instead. Under him, AKP has been concentrating on democratic and economic reform rather than on suffocating Islamist agenda.

In any case, AKP has marched forward farther towards liberalism than any secularist party in Turkey had. Therefore, if I were a Turk, I would be happy with AKP; that is especially so with a healthly economy.

Categories
Activism Conflict & disaster

[1343] Of PSA: JUST seminar on terrorism

JUST is organizing a seminar on terrorism set for early next month. I have been invited but unfortunately, I have promised my group within the Malaysian Nature Society to climb up the Klang Gates Ridge together with them on the same day. And so, I have to skip the seminar. To absolve myself from guilt of turning down the invitation, I am spreading the news for them. It is free and you, yes you bloggers you naughty little rascal, are invited.

JUST is pleased to announce that it will be organizing a seminar on “Super Terror and the Politics of 9/11” on the 8th September (Saturday). As part of our effort to reach out to the local blogging community and civil society groups/activists, we are directly inviting bloggers and activists such as yourself to participate in this programme. The seminar will touch on state-sponsored terrorism and will also focus on regional terrorism such as in Latin America, West Asia and Southeast Asia.

SEMINAR ON ‘SUPER TERROR AND THE POLITICS OF 9-11’
Date : 8 September 2007 (Saturday)
Time : 9.00 am — 5.30 pm
Venue : Sin Chew Hall, Sin Chew Daily, 19, Jalan Semangat, 46200 Petaling Jaya
Organiser : International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

For more information, visit JUST.