"Why do you always want to settle world affairs by using force and weapons? This era is finished and we are in the era of thought and culture."
(A response by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to President George W. Bush of the USA who recently branded him as tyrant and threatened to use force to solve the nuclear dispute)
In diplomacy, words play very important role in conveying messages from one government to another. The diplomats might put the messages in flowery words to disguise their real intentions but often time the words are straightforward and directly targeted. President Bush of the USA and President Ahmadinejad of Iran are examples of diplomats or heads of states that do not mind the use of direct wording in conveying their messages across.
Remember the time when President Ahmadinejad told his supporters that “Israel should be wiped out of the world map” and “the Jewish holocaust by Nazi is a myth”? And remember the day after September 11 attacks of WTC in New York when President Bush said that “either you are with us or against us” as reference to Al-Qaeda? And his recent comments on “Islamic fascists” and description of Iran's leaders "tyrants," compared them with Al Qaeda terrorists and that the world's free nations would not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?
These are examples of direct use of words in diplomacy that tends to convey some confrontationist and aggressive policy.
It is a public secret that Iran and the US have not been able to get along well ever since the Islamic revolution took place in Iran in 1979. Moreover, the hawkish policy of the US government in the region and towards Muslim countries as a whole has provoked even further the disenchantment between the two governments. The latest is the Iranian ambition to acquire nuclear technology and strong opposition from the US government regarding the matter. Accusing Iran of building nuclear weaponry in the disguise of developing peaceful nuclear technology, the US use all its resources to block the realization of Iranian nuclear program.
Acquiring nuclear technology is the right of any sovereign nation. This is not an exclusive right of certain group or countries to possess the technology. As long as the concerned country is responsible and using the technology for peaceful purposes, there should be no objection to it. Iran, as well as other country like India or Indonesia, is eligible to acquire the technology for peaceful purposes. The increasing needs of energy to sustain the development of these developing countries have urged them to find sustainable source of energy. Nuclear technology is one of the ways to fulfill this energy need and thus they should not be denied of this right to acquire nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
Coming back to the quotation above, it is interesting to see that the president of a country that claims to be the leader of the “world’s free nations” and the oldest democracy in the world used strong and even confronting rhetoric to force its personal agenda of “dominating the world”. The use of “language of force” or threats to solve differences is an opposition to democracy and democratic principles. It is like a cowboy who always pulls his gun whenever and wherever he wants to solve problems he is confronting. In the free world, cowboys only live in movies, not in reality. Instead, dialogue, deliberation, discussion as well as the rule of law are the guidelines that should be followed by all inhabitants to solve problems. The use of force is no longer an acceptable way to resolve problems. On the contrary, the use of force will only add to more problems.
President Bush’s use of language of force in this free world against Iran’s “stubbornness” to defend its right as a sovereign nation is like a cowboy who is eager to pull the trigger of his guns to resolve his problem. Once enemy’s dead, problem’s solved. Simple. But look at Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon in recent time. The use of force only added to more misery and complication of problems to the populace in these countries. It did not solve their problem.
Realizing the grave outcome of any use of force, President Ahmadinejad said that the cowboy’s era is finished and “we are in the era of thought and culture”. Iran, a country led by a “tyrant”, is ready to discuss the nuclear dispute between Iran and the rest of the world and listen to the argumentations in order to arrive at the solution to the problem. Iran is against the use of force and weapons and it is against the US and British plans to dominate the world.
Furthermore, President Ahmadinejad last month invited President Bush to a television debate "under the condition that nothing is censored". However, the White House rejected the invitation terming it as a "distraction" from the nuclear dispute. It is an attempt by Iran to “threaten” the US.
Iran’s insistence to conduct dialogue, discussion and negotiation to resolve problems and differences instead of confrontation and the use of force and weapons shows that in the world of free nations even a “tyrant” prefers the peaceful means of discussion and dialogue and the rule of law to solve problems. The era of settling problems and world affairs by the use of weapons and force is over and the era of thought and culture has arrived in which reasons and dialogue rule. It is now “the era of people and nobody should believe that they can sit in their glass houses and rule over the world.”
Who is the tyrant and who is the cowboy? Is it something of two faces of the same coin? Or is it really two different things? The answer is up to you to decide.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Saturday, August 26, 2006
Unjust Racial Profiling
After the thwarted mid-air bombing earlier this month in Britain, suspicions toward Asian (brown-skinned, non-white people) are on the sharp increase. Consider these illustrations:
Immediately after the failed plot to blow airline mid-air, the British police arrested 24 British Asians for their suspected involvement in the failed plot. Two weeks later, only eight out of that 24 initially arrested were formally charged with conspiracy to murder and plotting acts of terrorism, and another three for lesser crime.
Last week, two male passengers in their twenties were offloaded from a Mornarch Airlines flight from Spain to Manchester, the U.K. because they looked like Middle Eastern and ‘may have been speaking Arabic.’ Their ‘suspicious behavior’ was the reason for this action.
The latest incident was the detainment of 12 passengers on board a Northwest Airlines plane from Amsterdam to Mumbai by the Dutch authority for 12 hours simply because they ‘looked’ and ‘behaved’ liked Islamic terrorists. According to Dutch authorities, US marshals on board of the flight got suspicious because the 12 passengers, later known to be Indian nationals, were using mobile phones, talking laudly and changing seats.
Isn’t there any racial issue involved? If not, why all these terrorist-suspicion related incidents involved Asians? Are Asian (non-white) terrorists? If it is so, can’t we consider this attitude as racism by the White, a racial stereotyping?
Many have thought that with globalization – increased migrations and more ethnicities living geographically together – racial hostilities and anxieties would diminish and become the thing of the past. After all, the old colonizing mindset of superiority was based on power and on general ignorance about ‘other’ peoples. Unfortunately, things have changed dramatically in the post-9/11 world.
Ever since the report on 9/11 tragedy in the US was released in which Arab Muslim terrorists under the banner of Al-Qaeda were allegedly conducted this inhuman attack on civilians, suspicion on non-whites, especially Asian, by the majority community (read: the white people) are on the increase. Terrorism became the popular word and non-whites are the targets. Whenever there is security alert on the possibility of terror attack, Muslims and Asians (brown-skinned people) are the first to be suspected and be held responsible. Illustrations above only support this argument.
True that being vigilant is necessary and natural in which we all have to be alert from any eventuality. But being constantly suspicious towards certain groups of community or ethnicity for their ‘distinct behavior’ is an overzealous suspicion at its worst. This vigilant attitude is amount to baseless fear and sheer paranoia. Adding to the worsening of the situation is the reactions from the security officials, whose job is to actually be able to not make dangerous generalizations, who seem to be as ignorant as the regular Joe racist. They would immediately jump to the conclusion of imminent threat of terror for any ‘suspicious behavior’ of non-white, brown-skinned people. Moreover, the ethnic profiling that has been in practice in Europe has so far mostly caused trouble to air travelers, especially to people with brown skin (non-whites) regardless of their faith. It was reported recently that Claude Moraes, a London Labour Member of European Parliament, has claimed that he has been repeatedly treated as a suspected terrorist while traveling because of his ‘distinct appearance.’
It seems the racial jump made to equate all Muslims or brown-skinned, non-white people regardless of their faith with a threat of terror has been too easy and immediate. This is very dangerous and if it is not checked and remedied immediately, we could possibly witness a clash of civilizations as the result of little else but sheer ignorance.
Rooting out this kind of knee-jerk behavior based along racial lines is hard but not impossible. Ignorance is, in my opinion, the root of this mess. Thus to root it out, we have to first eradicate this ignorance through dialogues and discussions between the different groups in the society in order to build up an understanding of their issues and differences. It would educate the members of the majority community about the ‘other’ people. This kind of inter-faith or inter-racial dialogues and cooperation can be used as an important opening to solve the problems.
At the same time, the government should be more pro-active and genuine in improving the situation. Government sponsored programs to integrate the minority communities into the mainstream can also be considered as important step towards rooting out this problem. Once this process is successful, insecurity feelings among minority communities and suspicions that prevalent in the minds of the majority community can be eradicated.
This is the homework that must immediately be cleared up by the authorities, especially the Western authorities. At the same time, in regard with terrorism, they have to re-think the way in identifying the potential of terror threat. There should not be any generalizations in this perspective and they should learn and care more about parts of the world and the peoples outside their vicinity. Ignorance is the very source of enmity and ignorance of ‘other’ people is a stop closer to terrible, civilizational tragedy.
Immediately after the failed plot to blow airline mid-air, the British police arrested 24 British Asians for their suspected involvement in the failed plot. Two weeks later, only eight out of that 24 initially arrested were formally charged with conspiracy to murder and plotting acts of terrorism, and another three for lesser crime.
Last week, two male passengers in their twenties were offloaded from a Mornarch Airlines flight from Spain to Manchester, the U.K. because they looked like Middle Eastern and ‘may have been speaking Arabic.’ Their ‘suspicious behavior’ was the reason for this action.
The latest incident was the detainment of 12 passengers on board a Northwest Airlines plane from Amsterdam to Mumbai by the Dutch authority for 12 hours simply because they ‘looked’ and ‘behaved’ liked Islamic terrorists. According to Dutch authorities, US marshals on board of the flight got suspicious because the 12 passengers, later known to be Indian nationals, were using mobile phones, talking laudly and changing seats.
Isn’t there any racial issue involved? If not, why all these terrorist-suspicion related incidents involved Asians? Are Asian (non-white) terrorists? If it is so, can’t we consider this attitude as racism by the White, a racial stereotyping?
Many have thought that with globalization – increased migrations and more ethnicities living geographically together – racial hostilities and anxieties would diminish and become the thing of the past. After all, the old colonizing mindset of superiority was based on power and on general ignorance about ‘other’ peoples. Unfortunately, things have changed dramatically in the post-9/11 world.
Ever since the report on 9/11 tragedy in the US was released in which Arab Muslim terrorists under the banner of Al-Qaeda were allegedly conducted this inhuman attack on civilians, suspicion on non-whites, especially Asian, by the majority community (read: the white people) are on the increase. Terrorism became the popular word and non-whites are the targets. Whenever there is security alert on the possibility of terror attack, Muslims and Asians (brown-skinned people) are the first to be suspected and be held responsible. Illustrations above only support this argument.
True that being vigilant is necessary and natural in which we all have to be alert from any eventuality. But being constantly suspicious towards certain groups of community or ethnicity for their ‘distinct behavior’ is an overzealous suspicion at its worst. This vigilant attitude is amount to baseless fear and sheer paranoia. Adding to the worsening of the situation is the reactions from the security officials, whose job is to actually be able to not make dangerous generalizations, who seem to be as ignorant as the regular Joe racist. They would immediately jump to the conclusion of imminent threat of terror for any ‘suspicious behavior’ of non-white, brown-skinned people. Moreover, the ethnic profiling that has been in practice in Europe has so far mostly caused trouble to air travelers, especially to people with brown skin (non-whites) regardless of their faith. It was reported recently that Claude Moraes, a London Labour Member of European Parliament, has claimed that he has been repeatedly treated as a suspected terrorist while traveling because of his ‘distinct appearance.’
It seems the racial jump made to equate all Muslims or brown-skinned, non-white people regardless of their faith with a threat of terror has been too easy and immediate. This is very dangerous and if it is not checked and remedied immediately, we could possibly witness a clash of civilizations as the result of little else but sheer ignorance.
Rooting out this kind of knee-jerk behavior based along racial lines is hard but not impossible. Ignorance is, in my opinion, the root of this mess. Thus to root it out, we have to first eradicate this ignorance through dialogues and discussions between the different groups in the society in order to build up an understanding of their issues and differences. It would educate the members of the majority community about the ‘other’ people. This kind of inter-faith or inter-racial dialogues and cooperation can be used as an important opening to solve the problems.
At the same time, the government should be more pro-active and genuine in improving the situation. Government sponsored programs to integrate the minority communities into the mainstream can also be considered as important step towards rooting out this problem. Once this process is successful, insecurity feelings among minority communities and suspicions that prevalent in the minds of the majority community can be eradicated.
This is the homework that must immediately be cleared up by the authorities, especially the Western authorities. At the same time, in regard with terrorism, they have to re-think the way in identifying the potential of terror threat. There should not be any generalizations in this perspective and they should learn and care more about parts of the world and the peoples outside their vicinity. Ignorance is the very source of enmity and ignorance of ‘other’ people is a stop closer to terrible, civilizational tragedy.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Building Democracy in Myanmar
This week, in the sideline of the five-day meeting starting Monday between Southeast Asian ministers in Malaysia to put plans for a European-style single market, an Asean Economic Community, by 2015 on the fast track, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations also plan to sign a pact to facilitate trade and investment with the United States -- a step closer to a free trade agreement that signals stronger linkages with ASEAN’s number 1 trading partner.
The proposed pact will be called a “trade and investment facilitation arrangement”, a cooperation pact that is less formal than an agreement. Foreign ministers from ASEAN countries will sign the pact and the US Trade Representative, Susan Schwab, will represent the US government. Downplaying the significance of the wording, ASEAN Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong said that it was a flexible arrangement to overcome any potential US congressional opposition.
Since Washington imposes sanctions on Myanmar, one of the members of ASEAN, an informal arrangement like this does not require congressional approval to be operative. The decision to call the pact as an arrangement is, according to Ong, a tactical move to expedite the process. The arrangement will enable deeper business dealings between the US and all the members of ASEAN, including Myanmar, without Washington having first to lift any sanction imposed on one of ASEAN’s member state.
This proposed trade pact should be a welcome relief for ASEAN as an organization. The pact should allow the opening up of new opportunities in business and economic engagement between the two sides as well as an opening tactic to engage Myanmar actively. It is an open secret that the main reason for the EU or the US reluctance to engage ASEAN actively is Myanmar’s human right record and its lack of democracy. At the same time, the stubbornness of the military junta in Myanmar to improve the local situation added the situation from bad to worse.
The recent meeting of ASEAN ministers in Bali, Indonesia, to discuss about Myanmar’s problem failed to yield into any meaningful results. Pressures to Yangon by prominent members of ASEAN like Indonesia and Malaysia to show concrete steps towards democracy seem to have entered deaf ears in which Yangon only gave empty promises and no realistic steps have been taken so far. It even extended the house arrest term of Myanmar’s democratic leader, Aung San Su Kyi that should have been released this year.
This situation is definitely frustrating for other ASEAN member states. ASEAN as an organization wants to move forward but one of its members is stubborn enough not to be a part of the democratic setup in which a new ASEAN is based upon. If the situation continues, it will only add to more struggles and difficulties for ASEAN to strengthen its economic prowess and counter the increasing competition from the rising giants China and India.
How to clear, or at least reduce, this hurdle? Should ASEAN isolate Myanmar? Or should ASEAN engage Myanmar more actively to create a genuine impression about ASEAN’s intention to build a better situation in the region?
It is a tricky situation as long as democracy and human right are concern. Stubbornness shown by Myanmar’s military ruler to show concrete steps towards democracy is understandable. Relinquishing status quo is just like giving up our own lives. No body wants to do that, nor Yangon wants to relinquish its strict control over Myanmar people. At the same time Yangon seems to also see in some members of ASEAN the lack of democratic practice but no body seems to bother about it or tend to be apologetic about it. Look at Singapore or Malaysia for example.
Pressurizing Myanmar to show concrete steps towards democracy and to improve its human right records is like pressurizing Singapore or Malaysia to abandon its strict control over people’s basic rights and transform itself wholeheartedly towards liberal democracy in which people are free to practice their basic rights such as freedom of speech and expression. The recent effort by Malaysian government to control the free flow of blog, or citizen media, is a clear example of state’s effort to restrict its citizens’ right of freedom of speech and expression.
In my opinion, the most realistic way to clear, or at least reduce the Myanmar problem in ASEAN is by engaging it more actively and show more genuine efforts towards working together to improve democratic practice in Myanmar and in all other ASEAN member countries. It is not only Myanmar that needs to practice democracy but all members of ASEAN should be a part of a real democracy in which people are free to exercise their basic rights. Isolating Myanmar should be avoided at all cost. Because an isolation approach will only result in the opposite: Myanmar will fall into the hands of those countries that oppose the concept of democracy and respect of human rights.
Thus the decision by ASEAN and the US to sign a trade pact “arrangement” so as to allow all members of ASEAN to be a part of it is surely a positive “tactical move to expedite the process” towards democracy and improving human right record in Myanmar. It will be an important step towards establishing greater understanding among ASEAN member states, and the US in this case, towards engaging Myanmar more actively. If India, the world largest democracy, is willing to engage Myanmar actively as an effort to introduce democracy there, why ASEAN can’t do the same? Politics of isolation is doomed to fail but politics of engagement will flourish into a better future.
The proposed pact will be called a “trade and investment facilitation arrangement”, a cooperation pact that is less formal than an agreement. Foreign ministers from ASEAN countries will sign the pact and the US Trade Representative, Susan Schwab, will represent the US government. Downplaying the significance of the wording, ASEAN Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong said that it was a flexible arrangement to overcome any potential US congressional opposition.
Since Washington imposes sanctions on Myanmar, one of the members of ASEAN, an informal arrangement like this does not require congressional approval to be operative. The decision to call the pact as an arrangement is, according to Ong, a tactical move to expedite the process. The arrangement will enable deeper business dealings between the US and all the members of ASEAN, including Myanmar, without Washington having first to lift any sanction imposed on one of ASEAN’s member state.
This proposed trade pact should be a welcome relief for ASEAN as an organization. The pact should allow the opening up of new opportunities in business and economic engagement between the two sides as well as an opening tactic to engage Myanmar actively. It is an open secret that the main reason for the EU or the US reluctance to engage ASEAN actively is Myanmar’s human right record and its lack of democracy. At the same time, the stubbornness of the military junta in Myanmar to improve the local situation added the situation from bad to worse.
The recent meeting of ASEAN ministers in Bali, Indonesia, to discuss about Myanmar’s problem failed to yield into any meaningful results. Pressures to Yangon by prominent members of ASEAN like Indonesia and Malaysia to show concrete steps towards democracy seem to have entered deaf ears in which Yangon only gave empty promises and no realistic steps have been taken so far. It even extended the house arrest term of Myanmar’s democratic leader, Aung San Su Kyi that should have been released this year.
This situation is definitely frustrating for other ASEAN member states. ASEAN as an organization wants to move forward but one of its members is stubborn enough not to be a part of the democratic setup in which a new ASEAN is based upon. If the situation continues, it will only add to more struggles and difficulties for ASEAN to strengthen its economic prowess and counter the increasing competition from the rising giants China and India.
How to clear, or at least reduce, this hurdle? Should ASEAN isolate Myanmar? Or should ASEAN engage Myanmar more actively to create a genuine impression about ASEAN’s intention to build a better situation in the region?
It is a tricky situation as long as democracy and human right are concern. Stubbornness shown by Myanmar’s military ruler to show concrete steps towards democracy is understandable. Relinquishing status quo is just like giving up our own lives. No body wants to do that, nor Yangon wants to relinquish its strict control over Myanmar people. At the same time Yangon seems to also see in some members of ASEAN the lack of democratic practice but no body seems to bother about it or tend to be apologetic about it. Look at Singapore or Malaysia for example.
Pressurizing Myanmar to show concrete steps towards democracy and to improve its human right records is like pressurizing Singapore or Malaysia to abandon its strict control over people’s basic rights and transform itself wholeheartedly towards liberal democracy in which people are free to practice their basic rights such as freedom of speech and expression. The recent effort by Malaysian government to control the free flow of blog, or citizen media, is a clear example of state’s effort to restrict its citizens’ right of freedom of speech and expression.
In my opinion, the most realistic way to clear, or at least reduce the Myanmar problem in ASEAN is by engaging it more actively and show more genuine efforts towards working together to improve democratic practice in Myanmar and in all other ASEAN member countries. It is not only Myanmar that needs to practice democracy but all members of ASEAN should be a part of a real democracy in which people are free to exercise their basic rights. Isolating Myanmar should be avoided at all cost. Because an isolation approach will only result in the opposite: Myanmar will fall into the hands of those countries that oppose the concept of democracy and respect of human rights.
Thus the decision by ASEAN and the US to sign a trade pact “arrangement” so as to allow all members of ASEAN to be a part of it is surely a positive “tactical move to expedite the process” towards democracy and improving human right record in Myanmar. It will be an important step towards establishing greater understanding among ASEAN member states, and the US in this case, towards engaging Myanmar more actively. If India, the world largest democracy, is willing to engage Myanmar actively as an effort to introduce democracy there, why ASEAN can’t do the same? Politics of isolation is doomed to fail but politics of engagement will flourish into a better future.
Monday, July 31, 2006
From Qana to a Sustainable Peace in the Mideast
The continuous Israeli military offensive in southern Lebanon provoked by Hezbollah’s kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers has not stopped even though many countries in both Arab and non-Arab world have condemned the actions. This IDF military operation to “root out Hezbollah from Lebanon” has killed more than 500 civilians in Lebanon, injuring and displacing thousands others from the comfort of their homes. The latest and bloodiest attack occurred last Sunday when Israeli bombs reduced the buildings that housed refugees from other villages and cities in the village of Qana in southern Lebanon into ruble. Fifty-four civilians were reportedly killed, 37 of them children.
If the initial military offensive by Israel received mild and reluctant condemnation from the international community, this brutal killing of innocent civilians, mostly children who were asleep when the bombs landed, has received unequivocal condemnation and calls for immediate ceasefire from all corners of the globe but the USA. President Bush, speaking in Florida on Monday, said Israel had the right to defend itself and called on Iran and Syria to stop aiding Hezbollah. He further elaborated that there could be no cease-fire until Hezbollah was reined in and international borders respected, reiterating the U.S. stance on the conflict.
Israel, while regretting the loss of civilian lives, maintained that the Hezbollah fighters have used Qana to launch rocket attacks on northern Israel and that enough warning had been given to innocent civilians by way of air-dropped pamphlets. Thus they pleaded innocent and justified the attacks on Qana and blamed Hezbollah for this “accident”. Furthermore, Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Israel would not agree to an immediate cease-fire and planned to expand military operations in Lebanon.
Reacting to this tragedy, Lebanese PM Fouad Siniora issued a statement describing the event as an “Israeli massacre”. He went even further by denying US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who was scheduled to arrive in Beirut on Sunday, from visiting Lebanon until the announcement of an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.
India, a country known to be having close relation with the region but which has so far been reluctant to strongly condemn the Israeli military operation in southern Lebanon because Tel Aviv claimed they were acting against sponsors of terrorism, issued its strongest statement of condemnation on the Qana tragedy. New Delhi slammed Israel’s Sunday massacre in Qana and termed it as “continued irresponsible and indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon by the Israeli military, ignoring calls for restraint”. If in its earlier statement India said to have only regretted Israel’s “disproportionate” reaction to Hezbollah’s attacks, it now called for “an immediate and unconditional ceasefire”.
In Indonesia, the government strongly condemned the Israeli airstrike on Qana in southern Lebanon. It further said that the tragedy has strengthened the urgent need for an immediate cease-fire in the region and the best way to stop this from happening again is for Israel to end its military operations.
Post Qana massacre, Israel announced a 48 hours halt to its aerial strike on Lebanon in order to conduct a probe on Sunday’s Qana tragedy and provide safe passage to stranded Lebanese in southern Lebanon to leave for safer place. The UNSC immediately held a meeting to discuss the possibility of setting up a new peacekeeping force in the region. But, less than 24 hours after the Qana bombing, Israel has resumed its military operation in southern Lebanon thus dimming the hope of any early solution to the crisis.
The quick turns of events in this Israel – Hezbollah conflict has definitely affected the possibility of creating a “sustainable” ceasefire in the region. The assurance by Ms. Rice that a resolution to the conflict could be reached by this week becomes meaningless when her boss in Washington and the Israeli government have insisted on reining in on Hezbollah first before any ceasefire could be called. At the same time, Hezbollah and its supporters would never let this scenario to happen and they will fight till the end.
This gloomy scenario is really disturbing. If the crisis continues many more civilians will be killed and peace in the region would become elusive. If only a “new Middle East” scripted by the US could be achieved, it would be very gloomy and bloody. Terrorism would escalate even further and civilians would suffer the most and become the victims in the conflicts. The current events in Iraq mirror the possible future in the region.
To avoid this worse case scenario, the international community must immediately work together through international organization like the UN to give a unified voice of concern and pressure to the US and Israel to end the crisis. The US can make or break any collaborative efforts to solve the crisis. The failure of Rome meeting last week was an example of US importance in this matter. At the same time, exclusion of Hezbollah in the meeting was a mistake.
Thus, to reach any meaningful result there should be some serious diplomatic engagement to all parties involve in the conflict. Once a common ground has been achieved, restraint and ceasefire that would lead to a long lasting, or sustainable peaceful agreement, could as well be achieved. Qana tragedy should become a grim reminder that a continuing crisis in the region will only kill more innocent civilians and instability.
If the initial military offensive by Israel received mild and reluctant condemnation from the international community, this brutal killing of innocent civilians, mostly children who were asleep when the bombs landed, has received unequivocal condemnation and calls for immediate ceasefire from all corners of the globe but the USA. President Bush, speaking in Florida on Monday, said Israel had the right to defend itself and called on Iran and Syria to stop aiding Hezbollah. He further elaborated that there could be no cease-fire until Hezbollah was reined in and international borders respected, reiterating the U.S. stance on the conflict.
Israel, while regretting the loss of civilian lives, maintained that the Hezbollah fighters have used Qana to launch rocket attacks on northern Israel and that enough warning had been given to innocent civilians by way of air-dropped pamphlets. Thus they pleaded innocent and justified the attacks on Qana and blamed Hezbollah for this “accident”. Furthermore, Israeli Defense Minister Amir Peretz said Israel would not agree to an immediate cease-fire and planned to expand military operations in Lebanon.
Reacting to this tragedy, Lebanese PM Fouad Siniora issued a statement describing the event as an “Israeli massacre”. He went even further by denying US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, who was scheduled to arrive in Beirut on Sunday, from visiting Lebanon until the announcement of an immediate and unconditional ceasefire.
India, a country known to be having close relation with the region but which has so far been reluctant to strongly condemn the Israeli military operation in southern Lebanon because Tel Aviv claimed they were acting against sponsors of terrorism, issued its strongest statement of condemnation on the Qana tragedy. New Delhi slammed Israel’s Sunday massacre in Qana and termed it as “continued irresponsible and indiscriminate bombing of Lebanon by the Israeli military, ignoring calls for restraint”. If in its earlier statement India said to have only regretted Israel’s “disproportionate” reaction to Hezbollah’s attacks, it now called for “an immediate and unconditional ceasefire”.
In Indonesia, the government strongly condemned the Israeli airstrike on Qana in southern Lebanon. It further said that the tragedy has strengthened the urgent need for an immediate cease-fire in the region and the best way to stop this from happening again is for Israel to end its military operations.
Post Qana massacre, Israel announced a 48 hours halt to its aerial strike on Lebanon in order to conduct a probe on Sunday’s Qana tragedy and provide safe passage to stranded Lebanese in southern Lebanon to leave for safer place. The UNSC immediately held a meeting to discuss the possibility of setting up a new peacekeeping force in the region. But, less than 24 hours after the Qana bombing, Israel has resumed its military operation in southern Lebanon thus dimming the hope of any early solution to the crisis.
The quick turns of events in this Israel – Hezbollah conflict has definitely affected the possibility of creating a “sustainable” ceasefire in the region. The assurance by Ms. Rice that a resolution to the conflict could be reached by this week becomes meaningless when her boss in Washington and the Israeli government have insisted on reining in on Hezbollah first before any ceasefire could be called. At the same time, Hezbollah and its supporters would never let this scenario to happen and they will fight till the end.
This gloomy scenario is really disturbing. If the crisis continues many more civilians will be killed and peace in the region would become elusive. If only a “new Middle East” scripted by the US could be achieved, it would be very gloomy and bloody. Terrorism would escalate even further and civilians would suffer the most and become the victims in the conflicts. The current events in Iraq mirror the possible future in the region.
To avoid this worse case scenario, the international community must immediately work together through international organization like the UN to give a unified voice of concern and pressure to the US and Israel to end the crisis. The US can make or break any collaborative efforts to solve the crisis. The failure of Rome meeting last week was an example of US importance in this matter. At the same time, exclusion of Hezbollah in the meeting was a mistake.
Thus, to reach any meaningful result there should be some serious diplomatic engagement to all parties involve in the conflict. Once a common ground has been achieved, restraint and ceasefire that would lead to a long lasting, or sustainable peaceful agreement, could as well be achieved. Qana tragedy should become a grim reminder that a continuing crisis in the region will only kill more innocent civilians and instability.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Moral Responsibility and Tsunami
On Monday, 17 July 2006, tsunami struck the southern coastal lines of Java Island. After a 7.7 magnitude earthquake that centered in the seabed of the Indian Ocean rocked the capital city of Jakarta, a small but devastating tsunami struck the southern coastal lines of Java, killing more than 500 people and injuring many others as well as devastating the livelihood and properties of the people living in the areas.
Immediately after learning about this natural disaster from various media, I wrote in my weblog that "... the authority immediately issued a tsunami warning to the people in the coastal areas, asking them to leave their homes for higher ground for any eventual tsunami."
However, I made a mistake when I wrote about this government's immediate response about any eventual tsunami that might strike the coastal areas after the earthquake that reached as far as the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. The fact is that it was the Indonesian Transport Minister, Hatta Rajasa, who issued an instruction to the people in the coastal areas already being hit by the tsunami to retreat to higher ground for their safety.
Neither he nor the Indonesian government issued this instruction before the tsunami occurred. Instead, his instruction came when a tsunami has already hit the southern coastal areas of Java and has taken the lives and properties of the people there.
Two days later, it was reported in various media that the warning about any possible tsunami issued by the Japanese Meteorological Department and the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii soon after the 7.7 magnitude quake had actually come to be known by the Minister of Research and Technology, Kusmayanto Kadiman, through an SMS 20 minutes well before the actual tsunami occurred. However, upon receiving this message chose to remain silent and played down the threat. He only publicly revealed about the SMS and the warning he received well after the tragedy had struck.
The government knew about the danger but chose to remain silent. No official warning issued to the public. The officials said that they were too busy monitoring the aftershocks of this 7.7 magnitude quake.
For the record, no tsunami warning system has been set up for the southern coast of Java. An Indonesian warning system was supposed to be up and running by now after the 2004 tsunami, the worst on record, but it has stalled. No clear reason given by the government.
Had there been a tsunami warning system running in the areas hit by the quake, and had the Indonesian Minister who knew about the danger of tsunami informed the public and asked them to immediately leave for higher ground for their safety, the huge human and material loss due to this natural disaster could have been avoided.
Similarly, upon answering reporters' questions as to why no warning was issued on Monday, Vice President Jusuf Kalla claimed there was no need to issue such warning because most people had fled inland after the earthquake, fearing a tsunami. On the contrary, the strong quake felt in Jakarta was relatively negligible in these regions. Reports in various media say that only several persons in the coastal areas felt a slight tremor.
Furthermore, no one in the southern coastal region said that there was a mass movement of people to higher ground before the tsunami. Only some residents and tourists in the area recognized the signs of tsunami when the sea level receded suddenly and the wall of water approaching. They immediately fled to higher ground for safety. It was a purely natural instinct of saving oneself from danger and not from any tsunami warning issued by the government that minimized the number of the victims. But yet this natural signs and human instinct failed to save many others.
This government’s inaction and reluctance to inform the public about the imminent danger of tsunami, in my opinion, makes the government highly and morally responsible for this natural disaster. Aceh’s tsunami should have become the best teacher and experience to avoid similar catastrophe in the archipelago. But it seemed that the government is very slow to react. They played down the warning of an imminent danger of tsunami by “being busy monitoring the aftershocks” and claiming that “there was no need to inform the public believing that most people had fled inland after the earthquake, fearing a tsunami”.
Thus, in my opinion, the Research and Technology Minister, or even the Vice President Kalla, should willingly resign on moral ground. He failed to do his job and the public had to pay for it with their lives and the loss of properties. Had the government acted immediately and responsibly, the huge loss of human lives and properties caused by the tsunami could have been minimized. The government as a whole has to be held morally responsible for this tsunami disaster.
This post was published with some cuts and editings in The Jakarta Post on Saturday, 22 July 2006. The title of the published form was "Govt at Fault in Tsunami".
Immediately after learning about this natural disaster from various media, I wrote in my weblog that "... the authority immediately issued a tsunami warning to the people in the coastal areas, asking them to leave their homes for higher ground for any eventual tsunami."
However, I made a mistake when I wrote about this government's immediate response about any eventual tsunami that might strike the coastal areas after the earthquake that reached as far as the Indonesian capital, Jakarta. The fact is that it was the Indonesian Transport Minister, Hatta Rajasa, who issued an instruction to the people in the coastal areas already being hit by the tsunami to retreat to higher ground for their safety.
Neither he nor the Indonesian government issued this instruction before the tsunami occurred. Instead, his instruction came when a tsunami has already hit the southern coastal areas of Java and has taken the lives and properties of the people there.
Two days later, it was reported in various media that the warning about any possible tsunami issued by the Japanese Meteorological Department and the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii soon after the 7.7 magnitude quake had actually come to be known by the Minister of Research and Technology, Kusmayanto Kadiman, through an SMS 20 minutes well before the actual tsunami occurred. However, upon receiving this message chose to remain silent and played down the threat. He only publicly revealed about the SMS and the warning he received well after the tragedy had struck.
The government knew about the danger but chose to remain silent. No official warning issued to the public. The officials said that they were too busy monitoring the aftershocks of this 7.7 magnitude quake.
For the record, no tsunami warning system has been set up for the southern coast of Java. An Indonesian warning system was supposed to be up and running by now after the 2004 tsunami, the worst on record, but it has stalled. No clear reason given by the government.
Had there been a tsunami warning system running in the areas hit by the quake, and had the Indonesian Minister who knew about the danger of tsunami informed the public and asked them to immediately leave for higher ground for their safety, the huge human and material loss due to this natural disaster could have been avoided.
Similarly, upon answering reporters' questions as to why no warning was issued on Monday, Vice President Jusuf Kalla claimed there was no need to issue such warning because most people had fled inland after the earthquake, fearing a tsunami. On the contrary, the strong quake felt in Jakarta was relatively negligible in these regions. Reports in various media say that only several persons in the coastal areas felt a slight tremor.
Furthermore, no one in the southern coastal region said that there was a mass movement of people to higher ground before the tsunami. Only some residents and tourists in the area recognized the signs of tsunami when the sea level receded suddenly and the wall of water approaching. They immediately fled to higher ground for safety. It was a purely natural instinct of saving oneself from danger and not from any tsunami warning issued by the government that minimized the number of the victims. But yet this natural signs and human instinct failed to save many others.
This government’s inaction and reluctance to inform the public about the imminent danger of tsunami, in my opinion, makes the government highly and morally responsible for this natural disaster. Aceh’s tsunami should have become the best teacher and experience to avoid similar catastrophe in the archipelago. But it seemed that the government is very slow to react. They played down the warning of an imminent danger of tsunami by “being busy monitoring the aftershocks” and claiming that “there was no need to inform the public believing that most people had fled inland after the earthquake, fearing a tsunami”.
Thus, in my opinion, the Research and Technology Minister, or even the Vice President Kalla, should willingly resign on moral ground. He failed to do his job and the public had to pay for it with their lives and the loss of properties. Had the government acted immediately and responsibly, the huge loss of human lives and properties caused by the tsunami could have been minimized. The government as a whole has to be held morally responsible for this tsunami disaster.
This post was published with some cuts and editings in The Jakarta Post on Saturday, 22 July 2006. The title of the published form was "Govt at Fault in Tsunami".
Friday, July 07, 2006
Sport, Business and Israel
The unjustified ‘collective punishment’ by Israel to the Palestinian people seems to have evoked contradicting responses in Indonesia. Being a staunch supporter of Palestinian cause and statehood, Indonesian leaders think that Indonesia needs to show her sympathy and solidarity to the Palestinian people. But sport and business in Indonesia seem to have different take on this Israel – Palestine political conflict. Let’s take a closer look to the latest incidents related to this ongoing conflict.
First is the decision by the Indonesian government not to send the Indonesian Fed Cup team scheduled to play a playoff tie with the Israeli team for the World Group II in Tel Aviv later this month. Having worked so hard to reach the world group, this decision is a big blow to the Indonesian Fed Cup team: demotion from the World Group, inability to qualify for the World Group II next year and will face a host of penalties from the ITF.
Besides a possible fine of US$50,000 from the ITF and reimbursement of the Israeli association's expenses for hosting the tie for defaulting the tie, the players could also face suspension from international tournaments. And should the suspension last two years, it means Indonesia will miss the chance to play in the 2008 Olympic Game in Beijing. This is a very huge loss to the Indonesian tennis development.
Second, on June 25-29 a delegation from the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Kadin) was in Israel and concluded an economic agreement with the Manufacturers Associations of Israel (MAI) in an effort to seek closer business relations and assistance for Indonesia's economy. Under the deal, the two groups will work to exchange business information, forming joint business projects, and assist Indonesian and Israel businesspeople in their activities in the two countries.
Kadin Chairman Mohammad Hidayat said that the Kadin’s delegation visit to Israel and the subsequent agreement signed between Kadin and MAI was conducted in the capacity of Kadin as an independent business association and purely for business purposes. He reiterated that there is no diplomatic or political issues involved in it and the challenges now are to realize the cooperation for Indonesia’s benefit without resulting in any political implications.
According to Kadin, two-way trade between Indonesia and Israel was valued at around US$160 million last year, up from $120 million in 2004. Indonesia mostly imported chemicals and electronic components valued at some $14 million from Israel last year, and predominantly exported electronic products, plastics and rubber. The new agreement would permit the exploration of more business opportunities from Israel in the fields of agriculture, horticulture, information technology and advance technology equipment. A pilot project in agriculture and horticulture is soon to be launched in Indonesia and more Israeli investment will be available soon in Indonesia.
In the first incident, the Indonesian government insisted that the Indonesian Tennis Association (Pelti) not to send the Fed Cup team to Israel as a show of solidarity and sympathy to the Palestinian people. Even though the invitation to play in Tel Avis was extended by the Israeli Tennis Association, an independent tennis body, and not by the invitation of the Israeli government, the current event in Palestine seems to have forced the Indonesian government to reconsider its previous stance to give the team a green light to go to Israel. The reason: the Indonesian government can no longer tolerate what Israel has done to Palestine.
On the contrary, Kadin insisted that its engagement with MAI is solely for business purposes and not related to any political or diplomatic cooperation. For the sake of business investment and economic development in Indonesia, Kadin insisted on giving the green light to the implementation of the recently signed agreement. Kadin had never officially informed the government about the visit nor sought any permission for it. The Israeli Embassy in Singapore was involved in arranging the trip while several Indonesian government officials knew about it beforehand. Until now, Indonesia and Israel do not have any bilateral diplomatic ties.
Politically speaking, the Indonesian tennis team should have gone ahead with the schedule and go to Tel Aviv to play against the Israeli team there. The team is invited by an independent organization, the Israeli Tennis Association, to play there and not by the Israeli government. If Kadin could visit Tel Aviv and go ahead with its plan of more intense bilateral relation between Indonesia and Israel in business and investment without prior blessing of the government, why can’t Pelti take similar, independent stand in this matter? Tennis is a sport, politics is wholly different matter. The two should be separated as far as possible. Let the players play the game of tennis, and the politicians play the game of politics.
Witnessing the heroic struggle of the Indonesian Fed Cup team to qualify into the World Group two years ago in New Delhi was a delight and a historic personal experience. Knowing that the team I have supported wholeheartedly to be demoted to a lesser degree due to political pressure is disheartening.
Showing sympathy and solidarity to the Palestinian people does not mean that we have to sacrifice our national interests. Kadin has given this example. Being able to play more active role in international forums to pressurize Israel to solve the conflict in the region peacefully is more important for Indonesia than boycotting a tennis tournament.
If India, another staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, can work hand in hand and even opened up a diplomatic tie with the Jewish state without lessening its support to Palestine and the Palestinian people, why Indonesia can’t do the same? Kadin’s decision to go ahead with its business cooperation with MAI is, in my opinion, a big step forward to improve the economic condition and investment opportunities in Indonesia. Let’s play the game of tennis.
First is the decision by the Indonesian government not to send the Indonesian Fed Cup team scheduled to play a playoff tie with the Israeli team for the World Group II in Tel Aviv later this month. Having worked so hard to reach the world group, this decision is a big blow to the Indonesian Fed Cup team: demotion from the World Group, inability to qualify for the World Group II next year and will face a host of penalties from the ITF.
Besides a possible fine of US$50,000 from the ITF and reimbursement of the Israeli association's expenses for hosting the tie for defaulting the tie, the players could also face suspension from international tournaments. And should the suspension last two years, it means Indonesia will miss the chance to play in the 2008 Olympic Game in Beijing. This is a very huge loss to the Indonesian tennis development.
Second, on June 25-29 a delegation from the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (Kadin) was in Israel and concluded an economic agreement with the Manufacturers Associations of Israel (MAI) in an effort to seek closer business relations and assistance for Indonesia's economy. Under the deal, the two groups will work to exchange business information, forming joint business projects, and assist Indonesian and Israel businesspeople in their activities in the two countries.
Kadin Chairman Mohammad Hidayat said that the Kadin’s delegation visit to Israel and the subsequent agreement signed between Kadin and MAI was conducted in the capacity of Kadin as an independent business association and purely for business purposes. He reiterated that there is no diplomatic or political issues involved in it and the challenges now are to realize the cooperation for Indonesia’s benefit without resulting in any political implications.
According to Kadin, two-way trade between Indonesia and Israel was valued at around US$160 million last year, up from $120 million in 2004. Indonesia mostly imported chemicals and electronic components valued at some $14 million from Israel last year, and predominantly exported electronic products, plastics and rubber. The new agreement would permit the exploration of more business opportunities from Israel in the fields of agriculture, horticulture, information technology and advance technology equipment. A pilot project in agriculture and horticulture is soon to be launched in Indonesia and more Israeli investment will be available soon in Indonesia.
In the first incident, the Indonesian government insisted that the Indonesian Tennis Association (Pelti) not to send the Fed Cup team to Israel as a show of solidarity and sympathy to the Palestinian people. Even though the invitation to play in Tel Avis was extended by the Israeli Tennis Association, an independent tennis body, and not by the invitation of the Israeli government, the current event in Palestine seems to have forced the Indonesian government to reconsider its previous stance to give the team a green light to go to Israel. The reason: the Indonesian government can no longer tolerate what Israel has done to Palestine.
On the contrary, Kadin insisted that its engagement with MAI is solely for business purposes and not related to any political or diplomatic cooperation. For the sake of business investment and economic development in Indonesia, Kadin insisted on giving the green light to the implementation of the recently signed agreement. Kadin had never officially informed the government about the visit nor sought any permission for it. The Israeli Embassy in Singapore was involved in arranging the trip while several Indonesian government officials knew about it beforehand. Until now, Indonesia and Israel do not have any bilateral diplomatic ties.
Politically speaking, the Indonesian tennis team should have gone ahead with the schedule and go to Tel Aviv to play against the Israeli team there. The team is invited by an independent organization, the Israeli Tennis Association, to play there and not by the Israeli government. If Kadin could visit Tel Aviv and go ahead with its plan of more intense bilateral relation between Indonesia and Israel in business and investment without prior blessing of the government, why can’t Pelti take similar, independent stand in this matter? Tennis is a sport, politics is wholly different matter. The two should be separated as far as possible. Let the players play the game of tennis, and the politicians play the game of politics.
Witnessing the heroic struggle of the Indonesian Fed Cup team to qualify into the World Group two years ago in New Delhi was a delight and a historic personal experience. Knowing that the team I have supported wholeheartedly to be demoted to a lesser degree due to political pressure is disheartening.
Showing sympathy and solidarity to the Palestinian people does not mean that we have to sacrifice our national interests. Kadin has given this example. Being able to play more active role in international forums to pressurize Israel to solve the conflict in the region peacefully is more important for Indonesia than boycotting a tennis tournament.
If India, another staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, can work hand in hand and even opened up a diplomatic tie with the Jewish state without lessening its support to Palestine and the Palestinian people, why Indonesia can’t do the same? Kadin’s decision to go ahead with its business cooperation with MAI is, in my opinion, a big step forward to improve the economic condition and investment opportunities in Indonesia. Let’s play the game of tennis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)