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.
