What’s new at Perdana Library: January & February 2012
March 29, 2012 in Articles, Books etc, Perdana Library, PLF News, Resource Centre
Click here to read the book synopsis.
You are browsing the Blog for politics.
The Sun – Outcast no more
February 16, 2012 in Articles, Spotlight
*photo from en.wikipedia.org
February 16, 2012
YAP MUN CHING visits Myanmar’s old and new capitals to find its people revelling in a fresh wave optimism.
IF THERE is any doubt that the Myanmar capital Nay Pyi Taw was built to impress, one only has to take the drive from its shiny new airport to the massive Parliament House.
As the four-lane road widens to a 20-lane highway, there sits the massive complex made up of a series of large pagoda-roofed buildings set in a vast compound surrounded by a canal that reminded one vaguely of a moat. A sturdy black and gold iron grill gave the area a further line of defence.
Barely six months ago, this building was symbolic of all that was wrong with Myanmar. To most outsiders, Myanmar was routinely viewed as a country of 60 million largely living in poverty under a super elite military class which had no compunction in locking up suspected dissidents regardless of whether they were women, children or monks.
To fill the giant parliament, a controversial election was held in November 2010 to elect 330 lower house and 224 upper house representatives to complement the 25% of seats reserved for military appointees.
Above all, the government was reviled for its treatment of democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi whom it kept under house arrest for more than 15 years in total, while it secretly carved out a new capital in the sparsely populated central Burman plains.
Myanmar, in short, was the “Golden Land” brought to its knees by decades of internal strife and mismanagement.
Sometime in July last year, things began to change. All of a sudden, the country began liberalising at a pace dizzying even to those at the heart of the fight for greater political and civil rights.
A year after releasing Suu Kyi after the expiry of her last detention order in November 2010, the new military-backed civilian government followed up on its reform drive by freeing most of its political prisoners.
It went on to clear the way for Suu Kyi to contest in the April 2012 by-elections to replace cabinet ministers constitutionally required to vacate their parliamentary posts.
Responding to these developments, Myanmar’s biggest critics, the United States and United Kingdom, quickly deployed their envoys to re-engage with the government with promises of progressive sanctions relief upon further reform.
From a position of isolation and neglect, Myanmar found itself transformed almost overnight into the top destination for diplomats and international business people.
At a recent meeting with the latest delegation comprising top corporate leaders from the Asean Business Club, Vice-President of the Union of Myanmar Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry (UMFCCI) Maung Maung Lay admitted that the organisation was finding itself “overwhelmed” by the sudden changes and ensuing international attention.
“The reforms are moving at a much faster pace than we expected,” he said. “The private sector has no means and capacity to digest what the government has undertaken recently. This is what we have to admit.”
UMFCCI joint secretary U Moe Kyaw said the surge of interest occurred soon after US President Barack Obama acknowledged the “flickers of progress” in Myanmar in a speech last November.
“After Obama’s speech and (US Secretary of State Hillary) Clinton’s visit, we received many groups. However, we will always remember that Asean has been our friend in need and we will never abandon our friends from the region,” he said during the roundtable session at the UMFCCI’s office in Yangon.
Attracting considerable attention from the business community are three special economic zones (SEZs) that are being developed to attract foreign investment.
According to Moe, the first SEZ expected to come online in 2014 is the Thilawa Zone east of the Yangon River. Already, sections of the zone have been reserved for exclusive development by Chinese, Japanese and Korean investors.
“These countries have deep pockets and they are incredibly interested,” Moe said, adding that a mixed zone may be designated for interested Asean countries.
While infrastructure plans are being drawn up, Moe said a more pressing need is for the legal framework to be developed to cope with these changes.
“We are opening up for business but not too quickly. We have to first update our foreign investment law. This is a big step for Myanmar. We have many workers abroad and we have to look at attracting them to come back and develop businesses here.
“We are also worried about the Asean Economic Community to open our doors to parties interested in our market and resources. We do not want to be pushed back and segregated,” Moe added, pointing out that Malaysia and Thailand are among countries which have been able to protect their national interests.
Underscoring Myanmar’s newfound voice in the international arena, Maung confidently described the recent developments in his country as “irreversible”.
“We are on the verge of taking off. We will face headwinds and there will be turbulences but we will take off. We have been ostracised in the past but we are now gaining trust among our friends overseas,” Maung said.
Spurring this new wave of optimism is the positive engagement that has taken place between the new government led by Prime Minister Thein Sein and the opposition helmed by Suu Kyi.
In a move surprising even to many of her own supporters, Suu Kyi appears to have warmed up to Thein Sein unlike previous military leaders she had to deal with.
The pair are reported to have met on several occasions and are said to have developed an understanding to work together in the interest of the country while keeping hardliners at bay.
One of her supporters said this is because Thein Sein is known as one of the least corrupt generals. “We don’t like the generals but at least this one is clean,” he said.
A more compelling reason, said other observers, is that geopolitical developments have made it worthwhile for both sides to put an end to the decades long standoff.
“It is no longer necessary to talk about hardliners or softliners. The reforms will go according to the new world order. The government does not want to face an Arab spring in Myanmar or the mob justice that (former Libyan leader Muammar) Gaddafi received,” said one Myanmar businessman.
Similarly, the political opposition also finds it increasingly untenable to maintain its position in favour of western sanctions while global economic power shifts from a troubled Europe over to Asia.
“(Suu Kyi) is a very intelligent woman. She knows that what we did in the past did not work so we have to try something else,” said Kyaw Min Hlaing, an opposition supporter who contested in the 2011 elections under the flag of the National Democratic Force (NDF), an offshoot of Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy.
Hlaing, who lost his Yangon area constituency by a hair’s breadth of 170 votes, said the new wave of openness ushered in by the elections has also resulted in more room for political expression in the once tightly controlled society.
“People used to be afraid to express themselves. But they are now openly commenting and criticising the government,” he said.
Although unsuccessful in his bid for a parliamentary seat, Hlaing said that as the legitimate opposition candidate, he is permitted to shadow his political rival in the same constituency.
“This is not because the government changed the laws. It is because they are finally following the law,” he said.
Characteristically, however, the Lady at the heart of the struggle is more circumspect about the developments.
During a news conference held after an hour-long meeting with the Asean Business Club delegation, Suu Kyi cautioned that although the government’s reform gestures are much welcomed, they are by no means irreversible and much effort remains necessary to ensure that Myanmar remains on its reform track.
She said that foreign investors should “wait and see a little for their own good as well as that of the country”, stressing that it is more important to first have sound investment laws and respect for the rule of law so that both investors and the people can benefit from economic development.
While she maintained that she is not yet “satisfied” with the government’s reform programme, she conceded that the opposition is nevertheless “pleased” with them. “I think they still need to be strengthened and they need to be put on the right path.”
Despite her careful approach, it is undeniable that Myanmar is experiencing a spring of sorts, very different from the one that took place in the Middle East a year ago. At no point since Suu Kyi entered the scene in 1988 has the military government been as accommodating to the civilian political opposition.
Even more important to real peace in Myanmar is that the conciliatory gestures made by the military have not stopped with Suu Kyi. In tandem with their engagement with the democratic parties, the military is also negotiating crucial ceasefires and peace agreements with ethnic armed groups that have been waging a low intensity wars against the central government for decades.
Late last year, the government signed a ceasefire with a Shan armed group, followed a month later by an agreement with its enemy for more than half a century, the Karen National Union.
The Mon armed group is also reported to have reached an agreement with the government early this month. Talks are being held with the Kachin, Wa, Chin and other Shan groups.
Whether the democratic opposition is playing any role in these developments is a matter for conjecture but in July, Suu Kyi wrote an open letter to the prime minister offering to act as mediator between the government and the armed insurgents.
While it is true that there is nothing to stop the military from reversing its decisions, the unexpected breadth and pace of the reforms have shaken not a few sceptical minds. It may still be years before Myanmar will achieve a level of economic prosperity and political openness that will put it more at par with its better off Asean neighbours but at long last, it is finally taking the first tentative steps in the right direction.
Yap Mun Ching’s visit was made possible by the Asean Business Club. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
EricMargolis.com – Stop the hysteria or risk war with Iran
February 15, 2012 in Articles, Spotlight
*Image from bollyn.com
Posted on 15 February 2012 – 05:13am | By Eric Margolis
THE war of words between the US, Israel, and Iran intensifies by the day. The parties involved are shamelessly playing to domestic audiences in this election year. Israel keeps issuing threats it will attack Iran’s nuclear power installations, though some of its senior security officials downplay an alleged threat from Iran.
US intelligence still maintains Iran is not working on nuclear weapons. UN nuclear inspectors confirm this view, though they have been pressured by the US, which pays a quarter of UN salaries, to suggest Iran might be working on something nefarious – though all Iran’s nuclear sites are under strict UN inspection and satellite surveillance.
Not a peep from the UN about what global damage would be caused by an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites. Radioactive dust storms, to say the least.
The US Congress pulsates with war fever, fuelled by oncoming elections and huge cash donations. North America’s media pounds the war drums.
Iran shows spectacular public relations ineptitude by fulminating against Israel, calling it a “tumour” that must be removed, firing obsolete tactical missiles and staging flamboyant military exercises by its feeble armed forces.
In fact, Iran is doing the work of Israel’s hard-right Likud government by convincing the world that the Jewish state faces another Holocaust. Canada’s blustering, ill-informed foreign minister just repeated this absurd canard even though Iran is not believed to have any nuclear weapons. He preposterously compared Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler.
Even Israel’s hawkish defense minister recently opined that Iran is still some years away from having the ability to deploy a nuclear-armed missile.
Few ask the sensible question: why would Iran risk nuclear vaporisation by Israel or the US just to launch a small number of its inaccurate missiles at Israel? US and Israeli early warning satellites would spot any Iranian missile at launch and bring down a nuclear holocaust on the Islamic republic.
Israel’s North American partisans, whipped into a frenzy of alarm by a clever scare campaign designed to boost the fortunes of Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party, reply that Iran is run by madman who seeks nuclear martyrdom.
Over in the Mideast and parts of Europe, Israel’s Likud leadership, notably the Russian-born foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, who Israeli leftists often denounce as a deranged fascist, is regarded with as much alarm as Iran’s hot-headed leaders. “Those crazy Iranians and Israelis are going to start a nuclear disaster on our doorstep,” one European politician said to me.
The Iran crisis has benefited politicians in the US and Israel by defocusing public anger from the ongoing economic crisis in both nations, and by almost totally obscuring the Palestinian quest for recognition and statehood. Little wars are famously beneficial to politicians.
Both Barack Obama and Netanyahu expect to reap dividends from “getting tough” on the latest miscreant in a long line of Muslim bogeymen. Think back to the western powers’ demonisation of Gamal abdel-Nasser, whom Anthony Eden called “Hitler on the Nile”; to “arch terrorist” Yasser Arafat; to “mad dog of the Mideast” Muammar Ghaddafi; to “Butcher of Baghdad” Saddam Hussein; “Mr 9/11” Osama bin Laden; and now “the new Hitler” Ahmadinejad.
Here we go again. These targets of western wrath and vilification actually seem to enjoy their starring roles as villains and hate figures. Any publicity is better than no publicity.
*Image from palestinianpundit.blogspot.com
Lost amid all the threats is another simple question. Why are Iran and Israel at scimitars drawn? After all, under the late, unlamented Shah, Israel and Iran used to be bosom buddies. Even under the late Ayatollah Khomeini – a big hate figure in the Jewish world – Israel secretly sold some US$5 billion (RM15.3 billion) worth of US arms and spare parts to Iran during its long, bloody 1980s war with Iraq.
The main reason is that Islamic Iran has become the primary champion of the Palestinians now that the Arab states – and notably Syria – are on the ropes. Iraq, formerly a leading champion of the Palestinians, was crushed by the US. Iran is next on the chopping block if the US American-Israel Public Affairs Committee has its way.
A fair Israel-Palestinian deal would end the crisis between Israel and Iran. So would a Mideast nuclear-free zone. But no one dares pose this simple solution.
Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist, writing mainly about the Middle East and South Asia.
*Photo from snippits-and-slappits.blogspot.com
Project Syndicate – Charisma We Can Believe In
January 25, 2012 in Articles, Spotlight
January 9, 2012 | By Joseph S. Nye
CAMBRIDGE – A leadership transition is scheduled in two major autocracies in 2012. Neither is likely to be a surprise. Xi Jinping is set to replace Hu Jintao as President in China, and, in Russia, Vladimir Putin has announced that he will reclaim the presidency from Dmitri Medvedev. Among the world’s democracies, political outcomes this year are less predictable. Nicolas Sarkozy faces a difficult presidential re-election campaign in France, as does Barack Obama in the United States.
In the 2008 US presidential election, the press told us that Obama won because he had “charisma” – the special power to inspire fascination and loyalty. If so, how can his re-election be uncertain just four years later? Can a leader lose his or her charisma? Does charisma originate in the individual, in that person’s followers, or in the situation? Academic research points to all three.
Charisma proves surprisingly hard to identify in advance. A recent survey concluded that “relatively little” is known about who charismatic leaders are. Dick Morris, an American political consultant, reports that in his experience, “charisma is the most elusive of political traits, because it doesn’t exist in reality; only in our perception once a candidate has made it by hard work and good issues.” Similarly, the business press has described many a CEO as “charismatic” when things are going well, only to withdraw the label when profits fall.
Political scientists have tried to create charisma scales that would predict votes or presidential ratings, but they have not proven fruitful. Among US presidents, John F. Kennedy is often described as charismatic, but obviously not for everyone, given that he failed to capture a majority of the popular vote, and his ratings varied during his presidency.
Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon Johnson, lamented that he lacked charisma. That was true of his relations with the public, but Johnson could be magnetic – even overwhelming – in personal contacts. One careful study of presidential rhetoric found that even such famous orators as Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan could not count on charisma to enact their programs.
Charisma is more easily identified after the fact. In that sense, the concept is circular. It is like the old Chinese concept of the “mandate of heaven”: emperors were said to rule because they had it, and when they were overthrown, it was because they had lost it.
But no one could predict when that would happen. Similarly, success is often used to prove – after the fact – that a modern political leader has charisma. It is much harder to use charisma to predict who will be a successful leader.
Followers are more likely to attribute charisma to leaders when they feel a strong need for change, often in the context of a personal, organizational, or social crisis. For example, the British public did not regard Winston Churchill as a charismatic leader in 1939, but, a year later, his vision, confidence, and communication skills gave him charisma, given Britons’ anxiety after the fall of France and the Dunkirk evacuation. And then, in 1945, after the public’s focus had turned from winning the war to constructing a welfare state, Churchill was voted out of office. His charisma did not predict defeat; the change in followers’ needs did.
In practice, charisma is a vague synonym for “personal magnetism.” People vary in their ability to attract others, and their attraction depends partly on inherent traits, partly on learned skills, and partly on social context.
Some dimensions of personal attraction, such as appearance and non-verbal communication, can be tested. Various studies show that people who are rated as attractive are treated more favorably than unattractive people. One study finds that a handsome man enjoys an edge over an ugly rival that is worth 6-8% of the vote. For women, the advantage is close to ten points.
Non-verbal signals account for a major part of human communications, and simple experiments have shown that some people communicate non-verbally better than others. For example, a Princeton University study found that when people were shown images of two candidates in unfamiliar elections, they could predict the winners seven times out of ten. A similar study at Harvard, in which people were shown 10-second silent video clips of 58 elections, found that viewers’ predictions explained 20% of the variation in the two-party vote – a more powerful variable than economic performance. Ironically, the predictions became poorer when the sound was turned on.
In the 2008 election, Americans felt disillusioned by the Bush administration’s war in Iraq, and by the financial crisis that erupted two months before the vote. Obama was an attractive young candidate who spoke well and projected a sense of hope for the future. Clearly, this is one reason why Obama gained a reputation for charisma.
But part of his charisma was in the eyes of his followers. People sometimes say of charisma that “we know it when we see it,” but we are also looking in a mirror. As the economy worsened, unemployment rose, and Obama had to deal with the messy compromises of governing, the mirror became cloudier.
Charisma tells us something about a candidate, but it tells us even more about ourselves, the mood of our country, and the types of change we desire. Hard economic times make it difficult to maintain charisma. Obama faces the continuing challenges of unemployment and a recalcitrant Republican opposition, and Sarkozy must contend with similar problems. When they are campaigning, however, their rhetoric will be freed from the need to compromise. This year’s elections will be the true test of their charisma.
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., is a professor at Harvard and the author of The Future of Power.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2012.
www.project-syndicate.org
Auswaertiges-Amt : Political Islam and Democracy
January 18, 2012 in Articles, Spotlight
January 18, 2012 | By Guido Westerwelle
In an opinion article, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle addresses the role of Islamic political parties in the changes underway in North Africa and the Arab world.
In an article published in the 13 January issue of theFrankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle addresses the role of Islamic political parties in the changes underway in North Africa and the Arab world.
The Arab Spring faces three dangers. The first of these is restoration – that is, a resurgence of the forces of the old autocratic regimes. Secondly, economic failure could stoke social tensions and spark new unrest. Thirdly, democratic change could be undermined by radical, fundamentalist Islamist movements.
We need to support processes of transition in North Africa and the Arab world – politically and economically. Through investment, educational partnerships and more open markets, we can do a great deal to improve people’s economic prospects and give them more opportunities in life.
Politically, we should push to anchor democratic institutions and processes in these societies and to increase participation and plurality. In doing so, how are we to approach political groups whose political agenda is based on the values and morals of Islam? In places where elections have been or will be held, the majority of voters favour parties with Islamic leanings. How are we to greet the presence of Islam in politics?
It is important for us to take a sober and unbiased view. Political Islam is not the same thing as radical Islamism. An Islamic orientation does not in itself mean that a group has retrograde, anti modern, anti democratic or anti freedom views.
We need to learn to look carefully and to differentiate. Of course, there are also some fundamentalist, truly “Islamist” groups which have entered the political fray, and we have no prospect of successful dialogue with these groups. But what we have tended to see so far in Tunisia and Morocco, for example, are victories for more moderate Islamic parties.
We especially need to seek dialogue with these moderate forces about the relationships between state and society, politics and religion. After all, parties inspired by Islamic values and national traditions currently stand the best chance for long-term development into parties with a broad electoral base in the region. We must respect the wish of parties in North African countries to shape their politics with Islamic values, just as it is self evident in Europe that many parties feel a commitment to Christian values and base their political beliefs on them.
The decisive issue for us has to be the attitude of Islamic political parties towards democracy. Are these Islamic democratic parties, in the sense in which the European political spectrum naturally includes Christian democratic parties? I am confident that an Islamic orientation can be linked with democratic convictions, that Islam can be compatible with democracy.
The transition countries of North Africa can offer concrete evidence of this. Many representatives of moderate Islamic groups in North Africa are already looking to developments in Turkey, where the JDP – despite all the criticisms that could be made of it – offers an example of a party bound to both Islamic roots and democratic principles which is currently the country’s leading political force.
We need to take a closer look at the platforms of the Islamic parties, and above all we need to measure them by their actions. The key thing is a commitment to democracy and the rule of law, to a pluralistic society and religious tolerance as well as to the preservation of both domestic and external peace. These are the six criteria that we are applying, the six commitments we are calling for. Whoever adheres to them can count on our support.
In Tunisia, the Ennahda Party won a majority in the recent Constituent Assembly elections. Representatives of Ennahda describe the party as seeking to reconcile tradition and Islamic identity with the challenges of modern societies; they also, however, invoke democracy and plurality as the political framework for their actions. After the elections, Ennahda entered into a coalition with secular parties. These are encouraging signs along the path towards a political landscape with a prominent place for Islamic democratic parties. We should do our part to encourage positive developments by offering dialogue and support for a sustainable transformation to a plural and democratic society.
One thing is clear: the break with the autocratic past cannot be completed overnight. It demands patience and stamina on both sides of the Mediterranean. The Arab Spring has set in motion fundamental political changes and profound societal shifts. The toppling of autocrats and dictators in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt has completed the initial phase of revolutionary change. But the far longer phase of political, societal and economic reconstruction has only just begun.
There is an opportunity for moderate Islamic forces to permanently establish themselves in the form of Islamic democratic parties. It is very much in our interest for Islamic democratic parties to become established as a role model. That is why we should do everything we can to support this approach.