By The Hanoist
Mar 29, 2012
Following a series of high-profile procurement deals, Vietnam's growing naval program symbolizes its evolving military posture. Driven by persistent maritime disputes with China and facilitated by an expanding economy, Vietnam is actively modernizing its military through naval, air and electronic-fighting capability upgrades.
A decade ago, the Vietnamese navy was equipped with Soviet-era hardware based on technology from the 1960s along with an assortment of American-made vessels seized from South Vietnam at the end of the war. This outdated force was inadequate for patrolling the country's 200-mile exclusive economic zone or maintaining its claims over the Spratly Islands, an expansive archipelago also claimed in whole or part by China, Taiwan and several other Southeast Asian nations.
Dedicating approximately 3% of gross domestic product per annum to defense spending, Vietnam has gone on an armaments spending spree in Russia, the Netherlands and Canada, among others. The military hardware from these big ticket contracts is now beginning to enter service and promises to boost significantly Vietnam’s naval and air power.
Last year, for instance, Vietnam deployed its first two Gepard-class light frigates which were constructed at the famed Gorky Shipbuilding Plant. The Gepards, displacing 2,100 tons, feature the Uran-E missile system to target other ships, a helicopter deck and purported stealth technology for evasive maneuvers. Two additional Gepard-class light frigates, specially equipped for anti-submarine warfare, have also been ordered. Together, they will serve as the backbone of Vietnam's surface fleet for years to come.
Vietnam is also in the process of acquiring and deploying smaller missile boats. Of special note is the Molniya-class corvette which Vietnam has already received two from Russia and acquired the license to build locally an additional ten. Armed with SS-N-25 Switchblade anti-ship missiles, these 550-ton corvettes can blend in with coastal fishing vessels while packing a punch against adversaries further out at sea.
The move that has garnered the most attention, however, was the recent US$1.8 billion order of six diesel-powered Kilo-class submarines from Russia. These quiet underwater vessels offer Vietnam entirely new capabilities for patrolling the hotly contested South China Sea. The first Kilo is scheduled to be delivered in 2013, followed by one more each year through 2018.
Vietnam's experience in operating submarines is virtually nonexistent. In 1997, it discreetly obtained two obsolete Yugo midget submarines from North Korea presumably to practice underwater operations. Designed for infiltrating special forces commandos rather than naval combat, the midget submarines probably offered only limited training opportunities for Vietnamese sailors.
For full-scale underwater warfare training, it appears Vietnam will turn to India. The two countries have been engaged in high-level military talks with special emphasis on maritime cooperation. Since the Indian navy also employs Kilo-class submarines, New Delhi would be well suited to train Vietnamese crews. China responded warily to this bilateral warming trend in both words and deeds when a Chinese warship reportedly confronted an Indian navy vessel leaving a Vietnamese port in August.
Concerning where the Kilos will actually be berthed, most of the public information so far has come from Russian media. Moscow will reportedly build a submarine base for Vietnam at strategic Cam Ranh Bay, a one-time American and later Soviet naval base on the country's south-central coast facing the Pacific ocean.
In a surprise development, Vietnam is also finalizing a contract to purchase four Sigma-class corvettes from the Netherlands. Currently operated by the Indonesian and Moroccan navies, the Sigmas, two of which might be built in Vietnam, would be the most modern warships in Vietnam's inventory.
To provide air cover to its naval fleet and skies, Vietnam is in the process of acquiring Russian-made Su-30MK2 multi-role fighter aircraft. By the end of this year, Vietnam will have at least 20 of these advanced warplanes in addition to about a dozen relatively modern SU-27s and scores of leftover MiG aircraft that are older than most of their pilots.
Capable as naval strike fighters, Vietnamese Su-27s and Su-30MK2s will be able to reach the waters adjacent to the Spratly islands which are believed to be beyond the effective range of China's shore-based fighter planes.
To improve naval surveillance, Vietnam has procured six DHC-6 Twin Otter aircraft which will be delivered over the next two years. The amphibious aircraft can land and takeoff from the water and are ideally suited for maritime patrol and resupply. Manufactured in Canada, the Twin Otters represent Vietnam's first fixed-wing aircraft purchased in the West.
The question looming over all these acquisitions is how all this hardware will communicate and fit together given the military’s limited experience operating each of these platforms even on a standalone basis.
The interoperability challenge is especially acute since Vietnam is essentially acquiring defense platforms on an เ la carte basis from numerous suppliers - principally Russia, but also the Netherlands, Canada, France, and perhaps one day the United States. Vietnam's military will thus have to devote significant attention to training and transforming into a modern, professional fighting force.
A further reaching question is what doctrine will guide Vietnam’s military broadly and navy in particular. In 2009, the Vietnamese Ministry of Defense published a highly publicized white paper on national defense. This public document was a start but was laced with outdated communist rhetoric and anodyne pronouncements. Presumably Vietnamese planners are able to fully articulate strategic concepts in private without fear of offending Sino sensitivities.
In a 2010 interview, a Chinese vice admiral expressed concern that several Southeast Asian countries were in the process of acquiring submarine fleets. He stated "if this continues at the current rate, in several years the ASEAN [Association of Southeast Asian Nations] countries will create powerful naval forces" and that "this is naturally becoming a challenge to neighboring countries, including China."
Just as China is undertaking an "anti-access/area denial" strategy to keep the US Navy away from the Western Pacific, a better armed Vietnam and its potential partners could pursue a similar deterrence strategy with regards to Beijing in the South China Sea.
The analogy is not a perfect one since China obviously borders these contested waters. Apart from claiming almost the entire South China Sea, China is also preoccupied with at least two other major theaters, namely Taiwan and Northeast Asia. Thus, Beijing may reconsider its current ambitions to dominate the South China Sea if it receives enough pushback.
Vietnam is far from challenging China, but its modernizing military - as evidenced by its increasing naval capabilities - is making important strides towards a more credible deterrence.
Dipetik dari - Asia Times Online
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Myanmar casts spotlight on neighbours
Yap Mun Ching
28 March 2012
ON several occasions since 1997, the original six member states of Asean (Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Thailand, Singapore and the Philippines) have had to face unpleasant criticisms over their decision to widen the grouping to include the four remaining Southeast Asian states. Most problematic was the membership of Myanmar which brought about accusations that the association condoned the former ruling junta’s harsh treatment of the civilian opposition as well as the widespread rights violations that took place across conflict areas in the country’s minority areas.
Two pieces of news this month brought about a change in the balance of this equation. In early March, Myanmar’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi was allowed to make her campaign speech on state-controlled media channels. Under sweeping political changes, Myanmar’s new Constitution allows all contesting political parties 15-minute slots on television and radio.
To further burnish its reform pledge, the government invited observers from Asean, the EU and the US to monitor its upcoming April 1 by-elections which will see Suu Kyi contest in a Yangon area seat.
These reforms suddenly put to shame not a few of the Asean members states which only until recently felt compelled to criticise Myanmar for the treatment of its dissidents. Although the new freedoms in Myanmar remain tightly framed (candidates are allowed to speak of their campaign agenda but not criticise the previous military government), the impact was powerful when Suu Kyi appeared on national TV speaking of the importance of media freedom and calling for a reform of the judicial system to ensure that it is independent and just.
For the first time since Myanmar’s turbulent post-independence period, developments in the country cast the spotlight on its neighbours for their own weak guarantees of democratic freedoms.
Other than Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, no other Asean country provides channels for legitimate opposition parties to broadcast campaign speeches on national television. Rather, public funded media have become not channels for the information of the electorate but tools serving the interests of the incumbents. Consequently, the integrity of the political systems of all Asean countries are compromised to differing degrees because of the unequal access of political parties to the media as well as the lack of freedoms for media organisations to practise unbiased journalism.
Myanmar’s openness to accepting foreign election monitors also focuses attention on the fact that an election can only be a true reflection of the people’s vote as long as fairness prevails. Elections must not only be free of violence but independent institutions must be available to safeguard the integrity of the system. In Myanmar’s case, the presence of foreign monitors will address its weak institutional capacities and enable confidence building with the international community.
As for Asean, Myanmar’s invitation for regional observers to be present during the upcoming by-election cannot but highlight the irony of Asean observers inspecting other’s conduct when polls in their own countries barely stand up to scrutiny. Election violence still occurs in Cambodia and Thailand while allegations of gerrymandering, vote-buying and/or blatant cheating are widespread in other countries, including Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines. Come April 1, it would do well for Asean representatives tasked to “observe” the polls in Myanmar to also pick up some good practices that can be implemented in their own countries.
Dipetik dari - theSundaily
28 March 2012
ON several occasions since 1997, the original six member states of Asean (Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Thailand, Singapore and the Philippines) have had to face unpleasant criticisms over their decision to widen the grouping to include the four remaining Southeast Asian states. Most problematic was the membership of Myanmar which brought about accusations that the association condoned the former ruling junta’s harsh treatment of the civilian opposition as well as the widespread rights violations that took place across conflict areas in the country’s minority areas.
Two pieces of news this month brought about a change in the balance of this equation. In early March, Myanmar’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi was allowed to make her campaign speech on state-controlled media channels. Under sweeping political changes, Myanmar’s new Constitution allows all contesting political parties 15-minute slots on television and radio.
To further burnish its reform pledge, the government invited observers from Asean, the EU and the US to monitor its upcoming April 1 by-elections which will see Suu Kyi contest in a Yangon area seat.
These reforms suddenly put to shame not a few of the Asean members states which only until recently felt compelled to criticise Myanmar for the treatment of its dissidents. Although the new freedoms in Myanmar remain tightly framed (candidates are allowed to speak of their campaign agenda but not criticise the previous military government), the impact was powerful when Suu Kyi appeared on national TV speaking of the importance of media freedom and calling for a reform of the judicial system to ensure that it is independent and just.
For the first time since Myanmar’s turbulent post-independence period, developments in the country cast the spotlight on its neighbours for their own weak guarantees of democratic freedoms.
Other than Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, no other Asean country provides channels for legitimate opposition parties to broadcast campaign speeches on national television. Rather, public funded media have become not channels for the information of the electorate but tools serving the interests of the incumbents. Consequently, the integrity of the political systems of all Asean countries are compromised to differing degrees because of the unequal access of political parties to the media as well as the lack of freedoms for media organisations to practise unbiased journalism.
Myanmar’s openness to accepting foreign election monitors also focuses attention on the fact that an election can only be a true reflection of the people’s vote as long as fairness prevails. Elections must not only be free of violence but independent institutions must be available to safeguard the integrity of the system. In Myanmar’s case, the presence of foreign monitors will address its weak institutional capacities and enable confidence building with the international community.
As for Asean, Myanmar’s invitation for regional observers to be present during the upcoming by-election cannot but highlight the irony of Asean observers inspecting other’s conduct when polls in their own countries barely stand up to scrutiny. Election violence still occurs in Cambodia and Thailand while allegations of gerrymandering, vote-buying and/or blatant cheating are widespread in other countries, including Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and the Philippines. Come April 1, it would do well for Asean representatives tasked to “observe” the polls in Myanmar to also pick up some good practices that can be implemented in their own countries.
Dipetik dari - theSundaily
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
US could fly spy drones from Australian territory
SYDNEY: Australia on Wednesday said it may allow Washington to use its territory to operate long-range spy drones, as part of an increased US presence in the Asia-Pacific that has rankled China.
The United States and Canberra are planning a major expansion of military ties, with the first of a 2,500-strong Marine deployment to northern Australia unveiled last November by President Barack Obama due to arrive next month.
The plan has irked China and worried some Asian countries who see it as a statement by Washington that it intends to stand up for its interests in the region amid concerns of increasing assertiveness by Beijing.
Australian media carried reports Wednesday citing a Washington Post story that the United States was considering using the Cocos Islands, an atoll in the Indian Ocean off northwest Australia, to launch unmanned surveillance aircraft.
They said the Cocos would replace the present US Indian Ocean base of Diego Garcia, which America leases from Britain and is due to be mothballed in 2016.
Aircraft carriers and nuclear-powered attack submarines could also be based in Perth as part of efforts to refocus American defence resources in the region, the reports added.
Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith said the use of the Cocos Islands was a longer-term option for closer Australia-US engagement and its airstrip would need to be upgraded before it could be used.
"Cocos is a possibility... it's a long-term prospect and should be treated as such," Smith told ABC radio.
"It's not currently ideal because one of the first things that we would have to do... is a substantial infrastructure upgrade, particularly so far as the airfield is concerned.
"That's one of the reasons why this is very much a long-term prospect."
An upgrade would cost anywhere between A$75 to A$100 million, he added stressing that Australia's neighbours had nothing to fear.
"We have been transparent about these matters," he said.
The Cocos are seen as an ideal location to base unmanned patrol planes to keep watch on the world's busiest shipping routes and the South China Sea.
China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia all claim territory in the area.
Smith said the key priorities of the closer cooperation was the rotation of US Marines through the Northern Territory, greater air access and more use of the HMAS Stirling base in Perth.
Kurt Campbell, the US assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, was in Australia last week to discuss the first deployment of 250 Marines next month and other defence issues, he added.
Hugh White, a defence analyst at the Australian National University, said Australia was being viewed as a "strategic asset" by the US as it monitors China's rise.
"I think what we are seeing here is fundamentally a very significant shift in US strategy," he said.
The United States currently has only a limited deployment in longstanding ally Australia, including the remote Pine Gap satellite spy station near outback Alice Springs.
Dipetik dari - Channel NewsAsia
The United States and Canberra are planning a major expansion of military ties, with the first of a 2,500-strong Marine deployment to northern Australia unveiled last November by President Barack Obama due to arrive next month.
The plan has irked China and worried some Asian countries who see it as a statement by Washington that it intends to stand up for its interests in the region amid concerns of increasing assertiveness by Beijing.
Australian media carried reports Wednesday citing a Washington Post story that the United States was considering using the Cocos Islands, an atoll in the Indian Ocean off northwest Australia, to launch unmanned surveillance aircraft.
They said the Cocos would replace the present US Indian Ocean base of Diego Garcia, which America leases from Britain and is due to be mothballed in 2016.
Aircraft carriers and nuclear-powered attack submarines could also be based in Perth as part of efforts to refocus American defence resources in the region, the reports added.
Australian Defence Minister Stephen Smith said the use of the Cocos Islands was a longer-term option for closer Australia-US engagement and its airstrip would need to be upgraded before it could be used.
"Cocos is a possibility... it's a long-term prospect and should be treated as such," Smith told ABC radio.
"It's not currently ideal because one of the first things that we would have to do... is a substantial infrastructure upgrade, particularly so far as the airfield is concerned.
"That's one of the reasons why this is very much a long-term prospect."
An upgrade would cost anywhere between A$75 to A$100 million, he added stressing that Australia's neighbours had nothing to fear.
"We have been transparent about these matters," he said.
The Cocos are seen as an ideal location to base unmanned patrol planes to keep watch on the world's busiest shipping routes and the South China Sea.
China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia all claim territory in the area.
Smith said the key priorities of the closer cooperation was the rotation of US Marines through the Northern Territory, greater air access and more use of the HMAS Stirling base in Perth.
Kurt Campbell, the US assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, was in Australia last week to discuss the first deployment of 250 Marines next month and other defence issues, he added.
Hugh White, a defence analyst at the Australian National University, said Australia was being viewed as a "strategic asset" by the US as it monitors China's rise.
"I think what we are seeing here is fundamentally a very significant shift in US strategy," he said.
The United States currently has only a limited deployment in longstanding ally Australia, including the remote Pine Gap satellite spy station near outback Alice Springs.
Dipetik dari - Channel NewsAsia
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Military spending in South-East Asia: Shopping spree
Countries are buying lots of weapons, but does it count as an arms race?
THE tiny island-state of Singapore, home to just over 5m people, has a well-deserved reputation as a quiet, clean-cut hub for banking, lawyering and golf. Yet beyond the fairways it bristles with weapons.
According to a report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Singapore is now the fifth-largest arms importer in the world, bested only by some obvious behemoths—China, India and Pakistan—plus South Korea. Singapore accounts for 4% of the world’s total spending on arms imports. Its defence spending per head beats every country bar America, Israel and Kuwait. This year $9.7 billion, or 24% of the national budget, will go on defence.
These are striking figures, but then Singapore has been one of the bigger spenders in the region since its rancorous split from Malaysia in 1965. The difference now is that almost every country in South-East Asia has embarked on a similar build-up, making it one of the fastest-growing regions for defence spending in the world. Military analysts at IHS Jane’s say that South-East Asian countries together increased defence spending by 13.5% last year, to $24.5 billion. The figure is projected to rise to $40 billion by 2016. According to SIPRI, arms deliveries to Malaysia jumped eightfold in 2005-09, compared with the previous five years. Indonesia’s spending grew by 84% in that period.
It is part of a wider Asian phenomenon. For the first time, in modern history at least, Asia’s military spending is poised to overtake Europe’s, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think-tank in London. China is doubling its defence budget every five years and India has just announced a 17% rise in spending this year, to about $40 billion.
Until recently domestic insurgencies have amply justified some South-East Asian countries’ defence spending. Yet for decades there have been no interstate conflicts. An existential angst remains in Singapore over Malaysia to the north and Indonesia, its big neighbour to the south. Still, it is hard to imagine any of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) locking horns, apart perhaps from Cambodia and Thailand, who lob the occasional artillery shell at each other over a disputed temple on the border.
Mostly, though, countries seem to be exploiting economic success to update their hardware while the going is good. Defence spending slowed sharply after the Asian financial crisis in 1997-98, when many planes and ships were already old. Now many countries are enjoying rapid economic growth, of up to 6% a year, and robust budgets. This is not, says Bill Edgar of IHS Jane’s, a “strategic” arms race. Rather, he says, it is all about modernisation.
Take the regional giant, Indonesia. The Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 not only devastated communities, it also laid bare the shortcomings of the armed forces, which proved to be ill-equipped and demoralised. As American and Australian troops poured off aircraft carriers and other ships into the ravaged province of Aceh to bring aid and search for victims, Indonesian troops were reduced to spectators. The newly elected president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, took the humiliation personally. A former general, Mr Yudhoyono has since made modernising Indonesia’s armed forces a priority.
Indonesia is spending $8 billion this year on defence—still rather modest for a country of 240m, but up sharply from $2.6 billion in 2006. Much is going on new hardware and spare parts. The country has acquired Russian and American warplanes, including F-16 fighters, vessels for its navy, and spare parts for its C-130 transport planes. In January Indonesia signed a $1.1 billion deal for three German-made diesel-electric submarines, and lawmakers are debating whether to buy 100 Leopard tanks from the Netherlands. Mr Yudhoyono also wants to improve the lot of soldiers, with higher salaries and benefits.
Domestic political calculations are another factor behind the region’s defence splurge. Terence Lee at the National University of Singapore argues that in countries where the armed forces have meddled in politics, civilian politicians use larger defence budgets to buy political compliance from the military—Thailand is a case in point. Singapore, on the other hand, has a different motivation. It is the only country in the region building its own high-tech arms industry. Singapore has long sold weapons to other developing countries, but has recently been winning its first large orders from Western armies too. ST Engineering, the only South-East Asian firm in SIPRI’s top 100 defence manufacturers, has sold over 100 Bronco (or Warthog) armoured troop carriers to the British, for use in Afghanistan.
For all that, strategic concerns do count for something. For example, the sea lanes leading to the Strait of Malacca are the lifeblood of Singapore’s prosperity. And over the past decade, some may have worried that America was distracted by war elsewhere. So the growth of a Chinese blue-water navy has implications.
Strategic concerns also loom large for any country with a territorial claim to the disputed South China Sea, where China’s assertive stance has provoked a surge of spending by, for instance, Vietnam. The country recently ordered six Kilo-class submarines from Russia. Vietnam is also buying seven or so new frigates and corvettes over the next decade. In the Philippines the government of President Benigno Aquino almost doubled the defence budget last year, to $2.4 billion.
Even with new submarines and planes, Vietnam and the Philippines are still no match for Asia’s new superpower, should it come to war. But it might make China think twice, or even thrice, before trying anything, and buy time before America—presumably—comes to the rescue.
Dipetik dari - The Economist
THE tiny island-state of Singapore, home to just over 5m people, has a well-deserved reputation as a quiet, clean-cut hub for banking, lawyering and golf. Yet beyond the fairways it bristles with weapons.
According to a report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Singapore is now the fifth-largest arms importer in the world, bested only by some obvious behemoths—China, India and Pakistan—plus South Korea. Singapore accounts for 4% of the world’s total spending on arms imports. Its defence spending per head beats every country bar America, Israel and Kuwait. This year $9.7 billion, or 24% of the national budget, will go on defence.
These are striking figures, but then Singapore has been one of the bigger spenders in the region since its rancorous split from Malaysia in 1965. The difference now is that almost every country in South-East Asia has embarked on a similar build-up, making it one of the fastest-growing regions for defence spending in the world. Military analysts at IHS Jane’s say that South-East Asian countries together increased defence spending by 13.5% last year, to $24.5 billion. The figure is projected to rise to $40 billion by 2016. According to SIPRI, arms deliveries to Malaysia jumped eightfold in 2005-09, compared with the previous five years. Indonesia’s spending grew by 84% in that period.
It is part of a wider Asian phenomenon. For the first time, in modern history at least, Asia’s military spending is poised to overtake Europe’s, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a think-tank in London. China is doubling its defence budget every five years and India has just announced a 17% rise in spending this year, to about $40 billion.
Until recently domestic insurgencies have amply justified some South-East Asian countries’ defence spending. Yet for decades there have been no interstate conflicts. An existential angst remains in Singapore over Malaysia to the north and Indonesia, its big neighbour to the south. Still, it is hard to imagine any of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) locking horns, apart perhaps from Cambodia and Thailand, who lob the occasional artillery shell at each other over a disputed temple on the border.
Mostly, though, countries seem to be exploiting economic success to update their hardware while the going is good. Defence spending slowed sharply after the Asian financial crisis in 1997-98, when many planes and ships were already old. Now many countries are enjoying rapid economic growth, of up to 6% a year, and robust budgets. This is not, says Bill Edgar of IHS Jane’s, a “strategic” arms race. Rather, he says, it is all about modernisation.
Take the regional giant, Indonesia. The Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 not only devastated communities, it also laid bare the shortcomings of the armed forces, which proved to be ill-equipped and demoralised. As American and Australian troops poured off aircraft carriers and other ships into the ravaged province of Aceh to bring aid and search for victims, Indonesian troops were reduced to spectators. The newly elected president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, took the humiliation personally. A former general, Mr Yudhoyono has since made modernising Indonesia’s armed forces a priority.
Indonesia is spending $8 billion this year on defence—still rather modest for a country of 240m, but up sharply from $2.6 billion in 2006. Much is going on new hardware and spare parts. The country has acquired Russian and American warplanes, including F-16 fighters, vessels for its navy, and spare parts for its C-130 transport planes. In January Indonesia signed a $1.1 billion deal for three German-made diesel-electric submarines, and lawmakers are debating whether to buy 100 Leopard tanks from the Netherlands. Mr Yudhoyono also wants to improve the lot of soldiers, with higher salaries and benefits.
Domestic political calculations are another factor behind the region’s defence splurge. Terence Lee at the National University of Singapore argues that in countries where the armed forces have meddled in politics, civilian politicians use larger defence budgets to buy political compliance from the military—Thailand is a case in point. Singapore, on the other hand, has a different motivation. It is the only country in the region building its own high-tech arms industry. Singapore has long sold weapons to other developing countries, but has recently been winning its first large orders from Western armies too. ST Engineering, the only South-East Asian firm in SIPRI’s top 100 defence manufacturers, has sold over 100 Bronco (or Warthog) armoured troop carriers to the British, for use in Afghanistan.
For all that, strategic concerns do count for something. For example, the sea lanes leading to the Strait of Malacca are the lifeblood of Singapore’s prosperity. And over the past decade, some may have worried that America was distracted by war elsewhere. So the growth of a Chinese blue-water navy has implications.
Strategic concerns also loom large for any country with a territorial claim to the disputed South China Sea, where China’s assertive stance has provoked a surge of spending by, for instance, Vietnam. The country recently ordered six Kilo-class submarines from Russia. Vietnam is also buying seven or so new frigates and corvettes over the next decade. In the Philippines the government of President Benigno Aquino almost doubled the defence budget last year, to $2.4 billion.
Even with new submarines and planes, Vietnam and the Philippines are still no match for Asia’s new superpower, should it come to war. But it might make China think twice, or even thrice, before trying anything, and buy time before America—presumably—comes to the rescue.
Dipetik dari - The Economist
U.S., Australia to broaden military ties amid Pentagon pivot to SE Asia
The United States and Australia are planning a major expansion of military ties, including possible drone flights from a coral atoll in the Indian Ocean and increased U.S. naval access to Australian ports, as the Pentagon looks to shift its forces closer to Southeast Asia, officials from both countries said.
The moves, which are under discussion but have drawn strong interest from both sides, would come on top of an agreement announced by President Obama and Prime Minister Julia Gillard in November to deploy up to 2,500 U.S. Marines to Darwin, on Australia’s northern coast.
The talks are the latest indicator of how the Obama administration is rapidly turning its strategic attention to Asia as it winds down a costly decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. government is finalizing a deal to station four warships in Singapore and has opened negotiations with the Philippines about boosting its military presence there. To a lesser degree, the Pentagon is also seeking to upgrade military relations with Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei.
Although U.S. officials say the regional pivot is not aimed at any single country, analysts said it is a clear response to a rising China, whose growing military strength and assertive territorial claims have pushed other Asian nations to reach out to Washington.
The Pentagon is reviewing the size and distribution of its forces in northeast Asia, where they are concentrated on Cold War-era bases in Japan and South Korea. The intent is to gradually reduce the U.S. military presence in those countries while enhancing it in Southeast Asia, home to the world’s busiest shipping lanes and to growing international competition to tap into vast undersea oil and gas fields.
“In terms of your overall influence in the Asia-Pacific zone, the strategic weight is shifting south,” said a senior Australian official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the military talks. “Australia didn’t look all that important during the Cold War. But Australia looks much more important if your fascination is really with the Southeast Asian archipelago.”
Australia is a long-standing ally of the United States, and one of its closest partners in intelligence and military matters. More than 20,000 Australian troops spent time in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. About 1,500 Australian troops are now in Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led coalition.
An official interim review of Australia’s military basing structure recently concluded that the chances of the country coming under direct military attack are “currently remote.”
But it urged the government to strengthen its forces along the northern and western coasts, near where most of its mineral wealth is concentrated and where its defenses are relatively sparse. Australia is blessed with an abundance of natural resources and has become China’s leading supplier of coal and iron ore.
The strategic review also advises the government to tailor its basing plans by considering U.S. security interests.
For instance, the review urges a major expansion of the Stirling naval base in Perth, its primary port in western Australia, noting that the installation“could also be used for deployments and operations in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean by the U.S. Navy.”
Specifically, the review suggests that Stirling be upgraded in part so it could service U.S. aircraft carriers, other large surface warships and attack submarines.
Australian officials said a decision about Stirling’s future is not imminent, but the Pentagon’s interest has intensified recently. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus is scheduled to visit Perth and Darwin this month, following up on a February visit to Australia by Adm. Mark Ferguson, the vice chief of naval operations.
“The Australians have been one of our oldest, strongest allies,” Mabus said in an interview. “It’s fair to say that we will always take an interest in what the Australians are doing and want to do.”
Perth’s drawback is its isolation. It is about 2,400 miles south of Singapore, and 1,600 miles southwest of Darwin. But Pentagon officials say they are looking at the location because it could give the Navy a sorely needed place to refuel, re-equip and repair ships on the Indian Ocean.
“Australia is the only ally that we have on the Indian Ocean,” said a senior U.S. defense official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss strategic planning. “We see the Indian Ocean as an area that we need to spend a little more time on, where we have fewer well developed relations with countries, compared to the western Pacific.”
Elsewhere in the Indian Ocean, the United States operates a key joint naval and air base on the British island territory of Diego Garcia, about 1,000 miles south of the tip of India. But U.S. officials said operations are crowded, with little room to expand. In addition, the base’s future is uncertain; the U.S. lease will expire in 2016.
Partly as a result, U.S. officials are eyeing another coral atoll 1,700 miles to the east: the Cocos Islands, a remote Australian territory.
U.S. and Australian officials said the atoll could be an ideal site not only for manned U.S. surveillance aircraft but for Global Hawks, an unarmed, high-altitude surveillance drone. The U.S. Navy is developing a newer version of the Global Hawk, known as the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance drone, or BAMS, that is scheduled to become operational in 2015. Aircraft based in the Cocos would be well-positioned to launch spy flights over the South China Sea.
Pentagon officials said they are intrigued by the potential offered by Perth and the Cocos Islands, as well as another Australian proposal to build a new fleet base at Brisbane, on the east coast. But U.S. officials cautioned that nothing has been decided.
They also emphasized that the U.S. military is interested in operating only as a guest and is not seeking to develop its own bases.
Peter Leahy, a former Australian army chief, said the agreement to deploy U.S. Marines in Darwin is the first step as the military partnership expands.
“I think the discussions are well advanced and will lead to quite substantial arrangements,” said Leahy, now director of the National Security Institute at the University of Canberra. “Marines are important and I love them dearly, but the decisive plays in this region will come from the Navy and Air Force.”
Hugh White, a former Australian defense official, said that the Australian security alliance with the United States is essential but that Beijing could perceive the moves as too bellicose.
“This is all about China, of course,” said White, a professor of strategic studies at Australian National University in Canberra. “Australia is in a very complicated position in this. None of us want to live in an Asia dominated by China, but none of us want to have an adversarial relationship with China.”
In November, some influential Chinese voices criticized the deal to bring Marines to Darwin, with the state-run People’s Daily warning that Australia could be “caught in the crossfire” if it allowed the U.S. military to harm China’s interests.
Australian officials have played down such talk as predictable rhetoric.
“From our point of view, we want the Chinese not to be sensitive,” said the senior Australian official. “But having said that, they also understand that the relationship between the United States and Australia predates any American concern with them. China accepts that Australia does things with the U.S.”
Dipetik dari - The Washington Post
The moves, which are under discussion but have drawn strong interest from both sides, would come on top of an agreement announced by President Obama and Prime Minister Julia Gillard in November to deploy up to 2,500 U.S. Marines to Darwin, on Australia’s northern coast.
The talks are the latest indicator of how the Obama administration is rapidly turning its strategic attention to Asia as it winds down a costly decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. government is finalizing a deal to station four warships in Singapore and has opened negotiations with the Philippines about boosting its military presence there. To a lesser degree, the Pentagon is also seeking to upgrade military relations with Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia and Brunei.
Although U.S. officials say the regional pivot is not aimed at any single country, analysts said it is a clear response to a rising China, whose growing military strength and assertive territorial claims have pushed other Asian nations to reach out to Washington.
The Pentagon is reviewing the size and distribution of its forces in northeast Asia, where they are concentrated on Cold War-era bases in Japan and South Korea. The intent is to gradually reduce the U.S. military presence in those countries while enhancing it in Southeast Asia, home to the world’s busiest shipping lanes and to growing international competition to tap into vast undersea oil and gas fields.
“In terms of your overall influence in the Asia-Pacific zone, the strategic weight is shifting south,” said a senior Australian official who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the military talks. “Australia didn’t look all that important during the Cold War. But Australia looks much more important if your fascination is really with the Southeast Asian archipelago.”
Australia is a long-standing ally of the United States, and one of its closest partners in intelligence and military matters. More than 20,000 Australian troops spent time in Iraq between 2003 and 2009. About 1,500 Australian troops are now in Afghanistan as part of the NATO-led coalition.
An official interim review of Australia’s military basing structure recently concluded that the chances of the country coming under direct military attack are “currently remote.”
But it urged the government to strengthen its forces along the northern and western coasts, near where most of its mineral wealth is concentrated and where its defenses are relatively sparse. Australia is blessed with an abundance of natural resources and has become China’s leading supplier of coal and iron ore.
The strategic review also advises the government to tailor its basing plans by considering U.S. security interests.
For instance, the review urges a major expansion of the Stirling naval base in Perth, its primary port in western Australia, noting that the installation“could also be used for deployments and operations in Southeast Asia and the Indian Ocean by the U.S. Navy.”
Specifically, the review suggests that Stirling be upgraded in part so it could service U.S. aircraft carriers, other large surface warships and attack submarines.
Australian officials said a decision about Stirling’s future is not imminent, but the Pentagon’s interest has intensified recently. Navy Secretary Ray Mabus is scheduled to visit Perth and Darwin this month, following up on a February visit to Australia by Adm. Mark Ferguson, the vice chief of naval operations.
“The Australians have been one of our oldest, strongest allies,” Mabus said in an interview. “It’s fair to say that we will always take an interest in what the Australians are doing and want to do.”
Perth’s drawback is its isolation. It is about 2,400 miles south of Singapore, and 1,600 miles southwest of Darwin. But Pentagon officials say they are looking at the location because it could give the Navy a sorely needed place to refuel, re-equip and repair ships on the Indian Ocean.
“Australia is the only ally that we have on the Indian Ocean,” said a senior U.S. defense official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss strategic planning. “We see the Indian Ocean as an area that we need to spend a little more time on, where we have fewer well developed relations with countries, compared to the western Pacific.”
Elsewhere in the Indian Ocean, the United States operates a key joint naval and air base on the British island territory of Diego Garcia, about 1,000 miles south of the tip of India. But U.S. officials said operations are crowded, with little room to expand. In addition, the base’s future is uncertain; the U.S. lease will expire in 2016.
Partly as a result, U.S. officials are eyeing another coral atoll 1,700 miles to the east: the Cocos Islands, a remote Australian territory.
U.S. and Australian officials said the atoll could be an ideal site not only for manned U.S. surveillance aircraft but for Global Hawks, an unarmed, high-altitude surveillance drone. The U.S. Navy is developing a newer version of the Global Hawk, known as the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance drone, or BAMS, that is scheduled to become operational in 2015. Aircraft based in the Cocos would be well-positioned to launch spy flights over the South China Sea.
Pentagon officials said they are intrigued by the potential offered by Perth and the Cocos Islands, as well as another Australian proposal to build a new fleet base at Brisbane, on the east coast. But U.S. officials cautioned that nothing has been decided.
They also emphasized that the U.S. military is interested in operating only as a guest and is not seeking to develop its own bases.
Peter Leahy, a former Australian army chief, said the agreement to deploy U.S. Marines in Darwin is the first step as the military partnership expands.
“I think the discussions are well advanced and will lead to quite substantial arrangements,” said Leahy, now director of the National Security Institute at the University of Canberra. “Marines are important and I love them dearly, but the decisive plays in this region will come from the Navy and Air Force.”
Hugh White, a former Australian defense official, said that the Australian security alliance with the United States is essential but that Beijing could perceive the moves as too bellicose.
“This is all about China, of course,” said White, a professor of strategic studies at Australian National University in Canberra. “Australia is in a very complicated position in this. None of us want to live in an Asia dominated by China, but none of us want to have an adversarial relationship with China.”
In November, some influential Chinese voices criticized the deal to bring Marines to Darwin, with the state-run People’s Daily warning that Australia could be “caught in the crossfire” if it allowed the U.S. military to harm China’s interests.
Australian officials have played down such talk as predictable rhetoric.
“From our point of view, we want the Chinese not to be sensitive,” said the senior Australian official. “But having said that, they also understand that the relationship between the United States and Australia predates any American concern with them. China accepts that Australia does things with the U.S.”
Dipetik dari - The Washington Post
Autocratic leader leaves nation's democracy reaffirmed
Abdoulaye Wade, Senegal’s president for the last 11 years, has ended up a victim of hubris, following the path of other strong African leaders consumed by the belief they were the irreplaceable fathers of their nations.
He won the presidency in a 2000 election that led to one of the first constitutional transfers of power in Africa and blazed a trail for democratic change.
The former lawyer and professor, who became increasingly autocratic in office, will nonetheless be leaving the presidency with democracy in Senegal reaffirmed. In a rare moment of humility, he conceded defeat graciously on Sunday to a former protégé, Macky Sall, in polls he insisted for months he would win by a landslide.
The symbolism for Africa is potent. Mr Wade’s attempts to secure a controversial third term at the official age of 86 and in defiance of a constitution limiting the presidency to two, prompted one of the most turbulent periods in Senegal’s history.
It fuelled a campaign of protests by civil society groups which met with violent police reprisals that were unusual in a country known for its relatively benign state institutions.
Victory for the coalition that sought to unseat him could embolden other activists around the region campaigning for more accountable government.
But his departure also leaves sub-Saharan Africa in a weaker position on the global stage, with one less statesman to represent it on such issues as climate change, development and trade.
For the past decade Mr Wade has been one of Africa’s big political figures, outspoken in fronting the continent’s interests. Alongside the likes of former presidents Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria and Thabo Mbeki of South Africa he could bring a broad network of global contacts to bear on international negotiations and regional crises.
A series of weaker and less experienced heads of state, more focused on national agendas, have been in the ascendancy regionally.
However, his departure is good news for the political scene in Senegal, which soured dramatically as Mr Wade clung to power and promoted his unpopular son, Karim, to the heart of government.
Mr Wade spent 30 years in opposition before winning the presidency in 2000. A canny political operator with a brilliant and creative mind, he was as at ease talking about Senegal’s green bean production as he was about global financial architecture. During his tenure, he launched a raft of projects – many incomplete – designed to modernise his country’s subsistence farming economy.
But his outsized ego, increasing propensity to grand statements (exemplified by the vast statue to the African renaissance he designed and built on the outskirts of Dakar) and intolerance of potential rivals won him enemies.
In an interview with the FT in January he predicted he would be the “the last barracuda among the little fish.” He wanted, he said, to preside over a generational transition to more technocratic and youthful government.
Yet, some of Mr Wade’s fiercest opponents were young rappers and activists who, inspired by the Arab Spring, formed a civil society movement demanding change. In the end the generational change he sought to usher in has been forced upon him.
Dipetik dari - Financial Times
He won the presidency in a 2000 election that led to one of the first constitutional transfers of power in Africa and blazed a trail for democratic change.
The former lawyer and professor, who became increasingly autocratic in office, will nonetheless be leaving the presidency with democracy in Senegal reaffirmed. In a rare moment of humility, he conceded defeat graciously on Sunday to a former protégé, Macky Sall, in polls he insisted for months he would win by a landslide.
The symbolism for Africa is potent. Mr Wade’s attempts to secure a controversial third term at the official age of 86 and in defiance of a constitution limiting the presidency to two, prompted one of the most turbulent periods in Senegal’s history.
It fuelled a campaign of protests by civil society groups which met with violent police reprisals that were unusual in a country known for its relatively benign state institutions.
Victory for the coalition that sought to unseat him could embolden other activists around the region campaigning for more accountable government.
But his departure also leaves sub-Saharan Africa in a weaker position on the global stage, with one less statesman to represent it on such issues as climate change, development and trade.
For the past decade Mr Wade has been one of Africa’s big political figures, outspoken in fronting the continent’s interests. Alongside the likes of former presidents Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria and Thabo Mbeki of South Africa he could bring a broad network of global contacts to bear on international negotiations and regional crises.
A series of weaker and less experienced heads of state, more focused on national agendas, have been in the ascendancy regionally.
However, his departure is good news for the political scene in Senegal, which soured dramatically as Mr Wade clung to power and promoted his unpopular son, Karim, to the heart of government.
Mr Wade spent 30 years in opposition before winning the presidency in 2000. A canny political operator with a brilliant and creative mind, he was as at ease talking about Senegal’s green bean production as he was about global financial architecture. During his tenure, he launched a raft of projects – many incomplete – designed to modernise his country’s subsistence farming economy.
But his outsized ego, increasing propensity to grand statements (exemplified by the vast statue to the African renaissance he designed and built on the outskirts of Dakar) and intolerance of potential rivals won him enemies.
In an interview with the FT in January he predicted he would be the “the last barracuda among the little fish.” He wanted, he said, to preside over a generational transition to more technocratic and youthful government.
Yet, some of Mr Wade’s fiercest opponents were young rappers and activists who, inspired by the Arab Spring, formed a civil society movement demanding change. In the end the generational change he sought to usher in has been forced upon him.
Dipetik dari - Financial Times
Thursday, March 22, 2012
OIC to sit as observer in GPH-MILF peace talks
Carolyn O. Arguillas
March 22, 2012
COTABATO CITY - The Philippine government (GPH) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) ended their three-day peace negotiations Wednesday with no significant agreement reached on the substantive issues of power and wealth sharing but agreed to approve the request of the Office of the Secretary-General of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Conference) to sit as observer in the 15-year old talks.
The approval of the OIC’s observer status was contained in the Joint Statement signed by GPH panel chair Marvic Leonen and MILF panel chair Mohagher Iqabal with Malaysian facilitator Dato Ab Ghafar Tengku Mohamed.
“Excellent move,” historian Rudy Rodil said of the entry of the OIC. Rodil served as government peace panel member in the negotiations with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) from 1993 to 1996 and in the negotiations with the MILF from 2004 to 2008.
The OIC, he told MindaNews, is the “perfect mediator between the MNLF and MILF.”
Peace advocate Soliman Santos, a regional trial court judge who has written several books on the Bangsamoro peace process, echoed Rodil’s comment. He told MindaNews the entry of the OIC is “good for convergence and international clout. They should be able to help the MNLF-MILF unity process and see also who better represents the Bangsamoro aspirations.”
“A value addition to the talks,” said Guiamel Alim, of the Council of Elders of the Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society.
The 57-member pan-Islamic body brokered the peace negotiations between the Philippine government and the MNLF that led to the signing of the 1976 Tripoli Agreement and the 1996 Final Peace Agreement (FPA).
The MNLF has been holding an observer status in the OIC since 1977 and has been sending delegations to OIC meetings in the last 35 years. The MILF is composed of members of the MNLF who broke away from the MNLF in the late 1970s to form what it initially called the “New MNLF” but which it later renamed to MILF. The leader of the breakaway group was Salamat Hashim, vice chair to chair Nur Misuari.
Hashim succumbed to an illness in July 2003. Misuari was elected governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) a week after he signed the 1996 FPA. He was detained on charges of rebellion from January 2002 to April 2008.
The OIC initially created a Committee of Four that later expanded into the Ministerial Committee of the Six led by Indonesia to facilitate the talks until the signing of the FPA in 1996. In late June 2000, just as the military was about to attack the MILF’s main stronghold, Camp Abubakar, in the “all-out war “ waged by then President Joseph Estrada, the OIC’s International Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM) held in Malaysia, added two more country-members – Malaysia and Brunei – to make it into the Committee of the Eight , to look into the implementation of the 1996 FPA.
Historic
That meeting – the International Conference of Foreign Ministers of the OIC – in June 2000, is historic for both the Bangsamoro and the Philippine government. For the first time, an MILF delegation attended the meeting along with the MNLF as OIC observers. It was also the first time the Philippine government attended an OIC meeting as guest.
The June 2000 meeting was held at “Asia’s most extraordinary hotel,” – the Palace of the Golden Horses in Kuala Lumpur, venue of this week’s GPH-MILF peace talks.
Malaysia, an OIC member and member of the Committee of the Eight, has been facilitating the GPH-MILF peace talks since 2001, upon the invitation of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
In 2006, the OIC initiated the Tripartite Review of the implementation of the 1996 GPH-MNLF peace pact, expanding the Committee of the Eight membership into the Peace Committee for Southern Philippines (PCSP), with Indonesia as chair.
The first Tripartite Review was held in Jeddah in November 2007.
An Ad Hoc Hi-Level Group meeting of the OIC-GPH-MNLF Tripartite Implementation Review Process was held in Bandung, Indonesia early this month “to review the remaining unresolved
issues to complete the implementation of the FPA.”
The GPH-MILF and GPH-MNLF have been moving as two tracks. The Arroyo administration tried to get the two tracks together but failed.
“Convergence”
The Aquino administration has repeatedly said it wants a “convergence” of the three tracks — the GPH-MILF peace talks, the GPH-MNLF-OIC review of the implementation of the 1996 FPA along with its reform agenda in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), the core territory of both the GPH-MILF and GPH-MNLF peace tracks.
The MNLF had repeatedly said the congressional act — RA 9054 which amended RA 6734, the Organic Act creating the ARMM – did not incorporate key provisions in the 1996 FPA and rendered the autonomous region less autonomous than it already was.
The MILF on the other hand has repeatedly said ARMM is a “failed experiment” and is not the solution to the conflict. It handed over its proposed peace settlement in February last year — a Bangsamoro sub-state that is “less than independence but more than autonomy.”
The government handed its proposed “3 for 1” formula on August 22, 18 days after President Aquino and MILF chair Al Haj Murad Ebrahim met in Tokyo, Japan to fast-track the peace process and ensure an agreement is reached within the first half of the Aquino administration. .
The MILF panel rejected the proposal. Leonen quickly replied, “We reject your rejection,” the negotiation was adjourned on the second of the three-day talks.
The Malaysian facilitator shuttled from the GPH to the MILF peace panels in September and October and in November got the key members of the panels into an informal talks that eventually paved the way for the resumption of the talks in December. Since then, the two panels have been meeting monthly and will meet again in April in Kuala Lumpur.
In his opening statement on March 19, Leonen said, “we are approaching what would seem to be a stalemate in our ideas for transition as well as in our ideas of how to make permanent the solutions that work for our peoples. I invite our counterparts to take a step back with us. Perhaps, by examining the reasons why we insist on our various positions we can see ways forward.”
Iqbal in his opening statement said he hopes the Aquino administration is still pursuing the “first best option, which is to sign an agreement with the MILF, and the second best option, which is merely to reform the ARMM is not being pursued by the government in replacement of the negotiated political settlement of the Moro Question and the armed conflict in Mindanao.”
“Clearly if the first is the option of the government, then we can expect seriousness in the current peace talks. But if the second is now the option, then it is very easy to see. Expect commitment made to be changed randomly,” Iqbal added.
The talks, described “tough” by both panels, moved on until March 21 but without a significant agreement reached.
According to the Joint Statement, the parties, “continued their discussions on substantive issues, including power sharing on governance and wealth sharing.” Nothing more was said about the discussions.
Aside from approving the request of the OIC-Secretary General’s office to sit as observer in the talks, the two panels also agreed on the Terms of Reference for the consultants who will be part of their respective delegations in subsequent talks.
What the terms are have not been made public.
Dipetik dari - MindaNews
March 22, 2012
COTABATO CITY - The Philippine government (GPH) and Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) ended their three-day peace negotiations Wednesday with no significant agreement reached on the substantive issues of power and wealth sharing but agreed to approve the request of the Office of the Secretary-General of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Conference) to sit as observer in the 15-year old talks.
The approval of the OIC’s observer status was contained in the Joint Statement signed by GPH panel chair Marvic Leonen and MILF panel chair Mohagher Iqabal with Malaysian facilitator Dato Ab Ghafar Tengku Mohamed.
“Excellent move,” historian Rudy Rodil said of the entry of the OIC. Rodil served as government peace panel member in the negotiations with the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) from 1993 to 1996 and in the negotiations with the MILF from 2004 to 2008.
The OIC, he told MindaNews, is the “perfect mediator between the MNLF and MILF.”
Peace advocate Soliman Santos, a regional trial court judge who has written several books on the Bangsamoro peace process, echoed Rodil’s comment. He told MindaNews the entry of the OIC is “good for convergence and international clout. They should be able to help the MNLF-MILF unity process and see also who better represents the Bangsamoro aspirations.”
“A value addition to the talks,” said Guiamel Alim, of the Council of Elders of the Consortium of Bangsamoro Civil Society.
The 57-member pan-Islamic body brokered the peace negotiations between the Philippine government and the MNLF that led to the signing of the 1976 Tripoli Agreement and the 1996 Final Peace Agreement (FPA).
The MNLF has been holding an observer status in the OIC since 1977 and has been sending delegations to OIC meetings in the last 35 years. The MILF is composed of members of the MNLF who broke away from the MNLF in the late 1970s to form what it initially called the “New MNLF” but which it later renamed to MILF. The leader of the breakaway group was Salamat Hashim, vice chair to chair Nur Misuari.
Hashim succumbed to an illness in July 2003. Misuari was elected governor of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) a week after he signed the 1996 FPA. He was detained on charges of rebellion from January 2002 to April 2008.
The OIC initially created a Committee of Four that later expanded into the Ministerial Committee of the Six led by Indonesia to facilitate the talks until the signing of the FPA in 1996. In late June 2000, just as the military was about to attack the MILF’s main stronghold, Camp Abubakar, in the “all-out war “ waged by then President Joseph Estrada, the OIC’s International Conference of Foreign Ministers (ICFM) held in Malaysia, added two more country-members – Malaysia and Brunei – to make it into the Committee of the Eight , to look into the implementation of the 1996 FPA.
Historic
That meeting – the International Conference of Foreign Ministers of the OIC – in June 2000, is historic for both the Bangsamoro and the Philippine government. For the first time, an MILF delegation attended the meeting along with the MNLF as OIC observers. It was also the first time the Philippine government attended an OIC meeting as guest.
The June 2000 meeting was held at “Asia’s most extraordinary hotel,” – the Palace of the Golden Horses in Kuala Lumpur, venue of this week’s GPH-MILF peace talks.
Malaysia, an OIC member and member of the Committee of the Eight, has been facilitating the GPH-MILF peace talks since 2001, upon the invitation of then President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.
In 2006, the OIC initiated the Tripartite Review of the implementation of the 1996 GPH-MNLF peace pact, expanding the Committee of the Eight membership into the Peace Committee for Southern Philippines (PCSP), with Indonesia as chair.
The first Tripartite Review was held in Jeddah in November 2007.
An Ad Hoc Hi-Level Group meeting of the OIC-GPH-MNLF Tripartite Implementation Review Process was held in Bandung, Indonesia early this month “to review the remaining unresolved
issues to complete the implementation of the FPA.”
The GPH-MILF and GPH-MNLF have been moving as two tracks. The Arroyo administration tried to get the two tracks together but failed.
“Convergence”
The Aquino administration has repeatedly said it wants a “convergence” of the three tracks — the GPH-MILF peace talks, the GPH-MNLF-OIC review of the implementation of the 1996 FPA along with its reform agenda in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), the core territory of both the GPH-MILF and GPH-MNLF peace tracks.
The MNLF had repeatedly said the congressional act — RA 9054 which amended RA 6734, the Organic Act creating the ARMM – did not incorporate key provisions in the 1996 FPA and rendered the autonomous region less autonomous than it already was.
The MILF on the other hand has repeatedly said ARMM is a “failed experiment” and is not the solution to the conflict. It handed over its proposed peace settlement in February last year — a Bangsamoro sub-state that is “less than independence but more than autonomy.”
The government handed its proposed “3 for 1” formula on August 22, 18 days after President Aquino and MILF chair Al Haj Murad Ebrahim met in Tokyo, Japan to fast-track the peace process and ensure an agreement is reached within the first half of the Aquino administration. .
The MILF panel rejected the proposal. Leonen quickly replied, “We reject your rejection,” the negotiation was adjourned on the second of the three-day talks.
The Malaysian facilitator shuttled from the GPH to the MILF peace panels in September and October and in November got the key members of the panels into an informal talks that eventually paved the way for the resumption of the talks in December. Since then, the two panels have been meeting monthly and will meet again in April in Kuala Lumpur.
In his opening statement on March 19, Leonen said, “we are approaching what would seem to be a stalemate in our ideas for transition as well as in our ideas of how to make permanent the solutions that work for our peoples. I invite our counterparts to take a step back with us. Perhaps, by examining the reasons why we insist on our various positions we can see ways forward.”
Iqbal in his opening statement said he hopes the Aquino administration is still pursuing the “first best option, which is to sign an agreement with the MILF, and the second best option, which is merely to reform the ARMM is not being pursued by the government in replacement of the negotiated political settlement of the Moro Question and the armed conflict in Mindanao.”
“Clearly if the first is the option of the government, then we can expect seriousness in the current peace talks. But if the second is now the option, then it is very easy to see. Expect commitment made to be changed randomly,” Iqbal added.
The talks, described “tough” by both panels, moved on until March 21 but without a significant agreement reached.
According to the Joint Statement, the parties, “continued their discussions on substantive issues, including power sharing on governance and wealth sharing.” Nothing more was said about the discussions.
Aside from approving the request of the OIC-Secretary General’s office to sit as observer in the talks, the two panels also agreed on the Terms of Reference for the consultants who will be part of their respective delegations in subsequent talks.
What the terms are have not been made public.
Dipetik dari - MindaNews
Rice Cartel Plan Resurfaces
Cambodia and Burma look to join forces on the regional rice market
Cambodia is eager to revive an earlier plan to establish a regional rice trade cartel to help offset fluctuating international market prices and wants another key exporter Burma to join the group.
Officials said the move was discussed during a meeting between Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen and his visiting Burmese counterpart Thein Sein in Phnom Penh on Wednesday during which the two leaders considered ways to boost bilateral trade.
Cambodian government spokesman and Minister of Information Khieu Kanharith said Hun Sen requested that Burma join the proposed cartel in order to help stabilize the trade on the key commodity amongst members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN), of which Cambodia is the current chair.
ASEAN is comprised of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma, and Vietnam—all net rice exporters—as well as Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore—which import the majority of their rice.
“We want to establish a rice cartel association because Myanmar [Burma] is improving their rice mills,” Khieu Kanharith said.
“In 2012, Cambodia produced a four million ton surplus of unmilled rice because we don’t have enough good quality and modern rice mills and also because millers didn’t have enough money to buy unmilled rice,” he said.
He added that Cambodian rice farmers were forced to sell their unmilled rice to neighboring countries, such as Vietnam and Thailand where the rice could be processed cheaply and turned around for a profit on the global market.
“Myanmar [Burma] wants to export their rice and work with Cambodia on the issue,” he said.
Thein Sein is currently in the midst of a three ASEAN nation tour. He met with his Vietnamese counterpart Nguyen Tan Dung in Hanoi on Tuesday and will travel to Laos on Thursday where he will meet with Prime Minister Thongsing Thammavong in Vientiane.
Decade-long plan
The first unsuccessful attempt at coordinating rice prices for the global market came during a meeting of senior officials from major rice exporting nations from ASEAN countries and India in 2002.
The movement most recently gained attention in 2008 following remarks by then Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej that his government would try to create a cartel of rice-producing countries in partnership with Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma and Laos.
And while such an organization would benefit large-scale rice farmers in the world’s biggest rice exporting countries, most of which are located in Southeast Asia, the idea has been met with criticism from importing nations which say it could lead to artificially high prices set by monopoly.
Price-fixing could also lead to a drastic increase in food shortages for the populations of the same impoverished nations that are exporting rice.
Regional dependence
Many rice farmers in Cambodia are facing financial ruin this season after an abundant rice harvest and thinning demand from neighboring countries for processed rice led to falling prices.
Instead, they say, Thai and Vietnamese purchasers have focused on buying unmilled rice in Cambodia since the beginning of 2012, which sells for much cheaper than on their local markets, because they are able to process it themselves with modern milling equipment before selling it internationally for a substantial mark up.
One farmer in Battambang province said that a specific type of unmilled rice known as “Phkar Mlis” has recently increased in price because of the number of Thai buyers targeting the variety in Cambodia.
A rice miller named Lim Bunheng told RFA that despite a Thai government policy which prohibits the import of rice, Thai farmers have continued to buy unmilled rice to support their international market demand.
He confirmed that Thai purchasers are now buying “Phkar Mlis” unmilled rice and other dry seasonal unmilled rice to supplement their stocks. But he added that they were willing to purchase milled rice as well to avoid overall increasing rice prices.
“Thai farmers are buying both unmilled and milled rice as long as they can agree on a set price,” he said.
“Rice prices are going up, so they have been trading rice through border corridors even though the Thai government doesn’t want any rice imports.”
He added that if Thai buyers stop buying, the price of all Cambodian rice would drop.
Agriculture expert Srey Chanthy said the Thai market is able to absorb Cambodia’s rice because of high demand from importers like the Philippines and India.
Costs of milling
In February, Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance said it would guarantee US$25 million as collateral for loans to rice millers, who often lack the capital to purchase large quantities of paddy rice or build processing plants, the Phnom Penh Post reported.
Rice millers also fall short on the collateral needed to secure loans from commercial banks.
The government guarantee against defaults in the rice sector is part of plan to boost production and bring Cambodia closer to Prime Minister Hun Sen’s goal of exporting one million tons of milled rice by 2015.
Experts and officials said last month that falling rice prices had exposed the high costs of Cambodian milled rice production and its uncompetitiveness on international markets.
Rice millers in Cambodia have only exported limited amounts of processed rice to some European countries, the U.S., Russia, Australia, Hong Kong, and Malaysia.
Dipetik dari - Radio Free Asia
Cambodia is eager to revive an earlier plan to establish a regional rice trade cartel to help offset fluctuating international market prices and wants another key exporter Burma to join the group.
Officials said the move was discussed during a meeting between Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen and his visiting Burmese counterpart Thein Sein in Phnom Penh on Wednesday during which the two leaders considered ways to boost bilateral trade.
Cambodian government spokesman and Minister of Information Khieu Kanharith said Hun Sen requested that Burma join the proposed cartel in order to help stabilize the trade on the key commodity amongst members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN), of which Cambodia is the current chair.
ASEAN is comprised of Cambodia, Laos, Thailand, Burma, and Vietnam—all net rice exporters—as well as Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Singapore—which import the majority of their rice.
“We want to establish a rice cartel association because Myanmar [Burma] is improving their rice mills,” Khieu Kanharith said.
“In 2012, Cambodia produced a four million ton surplus of unmilled rice because we don’t have enough good quality and modern rice mills and also because millers didn’t have enough money to buy unmilled rice,” he said.
He added that Cambodian rice farmers were forced to sell their unmilled rice to neighboring countries, such as Vietnam and Thailand where the rice could be processed cheaply and turned around for a profit on the global market.
“Myanmar [Burma] wants to export their rice and work with Cambodia on the issue,” he said.
Thein Sein is currently in the midst of a three ASEAN nation tour. He met with his Vietnamese counterpart Nguyen Tan Dung in Hanoi on Tuesday and will travel to Laos on Thursday where he will meet with Prime Minister Thongsing Thammavong in Vientiane.
Decade-long plan
The first unsuccessful attempt at coordinating rice prices for the global market came during a meeting of senior officials from major rice exporting nations from ASEAN countries and India in 2002.
The movement most recently gained attention in 2008 following remarks by then Thai Prime Minister Samak Sundaravej that his government would try to create a cartel of rice-producing countries in partnership with Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma and Laos.
And while such an organization would benefit large-scale rice farmers in the world’s biggest rice exporting countries, most of which are located in Southeast Asia, the idea has been met with criticism from importing nations which say it could lead to artificially high prices set by monopoly.
Price-fixing could also lead to a drastic increase in food shortages for the populations of the same impoverished nations that are exporting rice.
Regional dependence
Many rice farmers in Cambodia are facing financial ruin this season after an abundant rice harvest and thinning demand from neighboring countries for processed rice led to falling prices.
Instead, they say, Thai and Vietnamese purchasers have focused on buying unmilled rice in Cambodia since the beginning of 2012, which sells for much cheaper than on their local markets, because they are able to process it themselves with modern milling equipment before selling it internationally for a substantial mark up.
One farmer in Battambang province said that a specific type of unmilled rice known as “Phkar Mlis” has recently increased in price because of the number of Thai buyers targeting the variety in Cambodia.
A rice miller named Lim Bunheng told RFA that despite a Thai government policy which prohibits the import of rice, Thai farmers have continued to buy unmilled rice to support their international market demand.
He confirmed that Thai purchasers are now buying “Phkar Mlis” unmilled rice and other dry seasonal unmilled rice to supplement their stocks. But he added that they were willing to purchase milled rice as well to avoid overall increasing rice prices.
“Thai farmers are buying both unmilled and milled rice as long as they can agree on a set price,” he said.
“Rice prices are going up, so they have been trading rice through border corridors even though the Thai government doesn’t want any rice imports.”
He added that if Thai buyers stop buying, the price of all Cambodian rice would drop.
Agriculture expert Srey Chanthy said the Thai market is able to absorb Cambodia’s rice because of high demand from importers like the Philippines and India.
Costs of milling
In February, Cambodia’s Ministry of Economy and Finance said it would guarantee US$25 million as collateral for loans to rice millers, who often lack the capital to purchase large quantities of paddy rice or build processing plants, the Phnom Penh Post reported.
Rice millers also fall short on the collateral needed to secure loans from commercial banks.
The government guarantee against defaults in the rice sector is part of plan to boost production and bring Cambodia closer to Prime Minister Hun Sen’s goal of exporting one million tons of milled rice by 2015.
Experts and officials said last month that falling rice prices had exposed the high costs of Cambodian milled rice production and its uncompetitiveness on international markets.
Rice millers in Cambodia have only exported limited amounts of processed rice to some European countries, the U.S., Russia, Australia, Hong Kong, and Malaysia.
Dipetik dari - Radio Free Asia
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
CONFRONTATION WITH AMERICA: China’s military spending surpasses $100 billion
By John Chan
March 19, 2012
This year’s Chinese military budget, approved by the National People’s Congress, is 670 billion yuan ($US106.4 billion), an 11.2 percent increase from 2011 and a doubling from 2006.
As a result, China is only the second country, after the US, to have a defence budget of over $100 billion, well ahead of third-placed France, which spent $61.2 billion in 2011. According to IHS Jane’s, in four years China’s military spending could exceed the rest of Asia combined, “leaving Japan and India far behind”.
The Western media, especially in the US, seized on the figure as further evidence of the military threat posed by China. The New York Times, for instance, wrote: “The new [Chinese] hardware is being displayed at a time when there is a growing gap between China’s rising military expenditures and slowing spending by other countries in the region, many of them American allies. That gap has reinforced the realisation that the United States may not remain the singularly dominant power in the Asia-Pacific region if Chinese military spending keeps escalating.”
Beijing is expanding its military to defend the economic and strategic interests of Chinese capitalism. But the main driving force for this arms race is the aggressive stance taken by the US, particularly under the Obama administration, toward China. Washington’s strengthening of alliances and partnerships throughout the Asia region, and its military build-up in South East Asia, threaten to encircle China.
US military spending is projected to be $707.5 billion in 2012 (base budget plus war costs such as in Afghanistan)—nearly seven times that of China. The US defence budget is greater than for the next 10 largest military powers combined. Huge US military spending ensures its vast superiority to China in almost every military field, ranging from its possession of the world’s largest strategic nuclear forces, to its 750 military bases around the world.
US militarism is the chief destabilising factor in world politics today. Facing economic decline, US imperialism has increasingly used its military might to undercut its rivals in Europe and Asia, waging predatory wars such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The NATO war on Libya directly led to the loss of billions of dollars in Chinese investment. Military threats by the US and its allies against Syria and Iran further undermine Chinese interests.
Under Obama, the US is focussing on undercutting Chinese influence throughout the Asian region. Speaking in Canberra in November, the US president pledged there would be no cut in defence spending in the Asia Pacific. The Pentagon’s new strategic guidelines, “Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” published in January emphasised “a rebalance” toward Asia and singled out China for special mention over its alleged lack of military transparency.
The Pentagon last year established an office for a new strategic doctrine of Air/Sea Battle which is directed against China. No official papers have been published, but it is openly discussed in American strategic think tanks. While nominally a defensive strategy to respond to a Chinese strike on US bases in the West Pacific, it has an overtly aggressive content. A so-called US counter attack would involve a full-scale war on China, firstly “blinding” Chinese surveillance, command and control systems, while destroying Chinese cruise and ballistic missiles forces, as well as its surface and submarine fleets.
The offensive character of Air/Sea Battle is demonstrated by its targeting of China’s “access-denial” capabilities, such as its DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles. While much hyped in American strategic literature, these missiles were developed as a defensive measure to prevent American warships having unfettered access to sensitive strategic waters near the Chinese coast. The US is developing a new X-47B stealth drone bomber to pre-emptively attack these missiles.
Another purpose of Air/Sea Battle is to cut China’s vital shipping routes to the Middle East and Asia, by blocking the “choke points” such as the Malacca Strait. As a result, the Chinese economy would be starved of imported energy and raw materials. Such a conflict would rapidly involve US allies such as Japan and Australia and potentially escalate into a nuclear war.
Washington’s push to develop a joint anti-ballistic missile defence system with Japan in recent years has prompted China to deploy less detectable mobile land- and submarine-launched nuclear missiles. The concern in Beijing was that a missile defence shield would allow the US to launch a first strike against China’s relatively small nuclear force then neutralise any remaining Chinese missiles. China has also responded by developing anti-satellite missiles to reduce US monitoring capabilities in the event of a war. The anti-satellite missiles in turn have become a main target of the American Air/Sea Battle doctrine.
So far, China has increased its military spending within the context of avoiding any confrontation with the US. Its official policy remains that of the “peaceful rise”—a course set in the 1980s, when China was incorporated into the world capitalist economy as a cheap labour platform.
Measured as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), Chinese military spending declined from 1.4 percent in 2006 to 1.3 percent last year. By comparison, the US figure increased from 3.1 percent in 2001 to 4.7 percent in 2011. Chinese spending per GDP is also low compared to other major military powers—4.3 percent in Russia, 2.5 percent in France and 2.7 percent in UK.
A large component of China’s increased military spending is devoted to building hi-tech weapons to match those of the US. For its precision-guided munitions, China aims to establish its own equivalent of the American GPS system, covering the Asia Pacific region by the end of the year. As a result, it made more satellite launches than the US during the past two years. China’s stealth fighter J-20 fleet is likely to cost $110 million apiece, compared to $131 million for one US F-35. Beijing is also investing heavily in a costly blue-water navy, including aircraft carriers.
Far from ensuring peace in Asia, the Obama administration’s belligerence toward China is strengthening the hand of more hardline sections of the Beijing regime that have long argued that the current military spending is “too low” and called for stronger action to defend China’s interests. The result is rising tensions in a region of the world that is notorious for the numerous potential flashpoints that could trigger a war.
Dipetik dari - GlobalResearch.ca
March 19, 2012
This year’s Chinese military budget, approved by the National People’s Congress, is 670 billion yuan ($US106.4 billion), an 11.2 percent increase from 2011 and a doubling from 2006.
As a result, China is only the second country, after the US, to have a defence budget of over $100 billion, well ahead of third-placed France, which spent $61.2 billion in 2011. According to IHS Jane’s, in four years China’s military spending could exceed the rest of Asia combined, “leaving Japan and India far behind”.
The Western media, especially in the US, seized on the figure as further evidence of the military threat posed by China. The New York Times, for instance, wrote: “The new [Chinese] hardware is being displayed at a time when there is a growing gap between China’s rising military expenditures and slowing spending by other countries in the region, many of them American allies. That gap has reinforced the realisation that the United States may not remain the singularly dominant power in the Asia-Pacific region if Chinese military spending keeps escalating.”
Beijing is expanding its military to defend the economic and strategic interests of Chinese capitalism. But the main driving force for this arms race is the aggressive stance taken by the US, particularly under the Obama administration, toward China. Washington’s strengthening of alliances and partnerships throughout the Asia region, and its military build-up in South East Asia, threaten to encircle China.
US military spending is projected to be $707.5 billion in 2012 (base budget plus war costs such as in Afghanistan)—nearly seven times that of China. The US defence budget is greater than for the next 10 largest military powers combined. Huge US military spending ensures its vast superiority to China in almost every military field, ranging from its possession of the world’s largest strategic nuclear forces, to its 750 military bases around the world.
US militarism is the chief destabilising factor in world politics today. Facing economic decline, US imperialism has increasingly used its military might to undercut its rivals in Europe and Asia, waging predatory wars such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The NATO war on Libya directly led to the loss of billions of dollars in Chinese investment. Military threats by the US and its allies against Syria and Iran further undermine Chinese interests.
Under Obama, the US is focussing on undercutting Chinese influence throughout the Asian region. Speaking in Canberra in November, the US president pledged there would be no cut in defence spending in the Asia Pacific. The Pentagon’s new strategic guidelines, “Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense,” published in January emphasised “a rebalance” toward Asia and singled out China for special mention over its alleged lack of military transparency.
The Pentagon last year established an office for a new strategic doctrine of Air/Sea Battle which is directed against China. No official papers have been published, but it is openly discussed in American strategic think tanks. While nominally a defensive strategy to respond to a Chinese strike on US bases in the West Pacific, it has an overtly aggressive content. A so-called US counter attack would involve a full-scale war on China, firstly “blinding” Chinese surveillance, command and control systems, while destroying Chinese cruise and ballistic missiles forces, as well as its surface and submarine fleets.
The offensive character of Air/Sea Battle is demonstrated by its targeting of China’s “access-denial” capabilities, such as its DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles. While much hyped in American strategic literature, these missiles were developed as a defensive measure to prevent American warships having unfettered access to sensitive strategic waters near the Chinese coast. The US is developing a new X-47B stealth drone bomber to pre-emptively attack these missiles.
Another purpose of Air/Sea Battle is to cut China’s vital shipping routes to the Middle East and Asia, by blocking the “choke points” such as the Malacca Strait. As a result, the Chinese economy would be starved of imported energy and raw materials. Such a conflict would rapidly involve US allies such as Japan and Australia and potentially escalate into a nuclear war.
Washington’s push to develop a joint anti-ballistic missile defence system with Japan in recent years has prompted China to deploy less detectable mobile land- and submarine-launched nuclear missiles. The concern in Beijing was that a missile defence shield would allow the US to launch a first strike against China’s relatively small nuclear force then neutralise any remaining Chinese missiles. China has also responded by developing anti-satellite missiles to reduce US monitoring capabilities in the event of a war. The anti-satellite missiles in turn have become a main target of the American Air/Sea Battle doctrine.
So far, China has increased its military spending within the context of avoiding any confrontation with the US. Its official policy remains that of the “peaceful rise”—a course set in the 1980s, when China was incorporated into the world capitalist economy as a cheap labour platform.
Measured as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), Chinese military spending declined from 1.4 percent in 2006 to 1.3 percent last year. By comparison, the US figure increased from 3.1 percent in 2001 to 4.7 percent in 2011. Chinese spending per GDP is also low compared to other major military powers—4.3 percent in Russia, 2.5 percent in France and 2.7 percent in UK.
A large component of China’s increased military spending is devoted to building hi-tech weapons to match those of the US. For its precision-guided munitions, China aims to establish its own equivalent of the American GPS system, covering the Asia Pacific region by the end of the year. As a result, it made more satellite launches than the US during the past two years. China’s stealth fighter J-20 fleet is likely to cost $110 million apiece, compared to $131 million for one US F-35. Beijing is also investing heavily in a costly blue-water navy, including aircraft carriers.
Far from ensuring peace in Asia, the Obama administration’s belligerence toward China is strengthening the hand of more hardline sections of the Beijing regime that have long argued that the current military spending is “too low” and called for stronger action to defend China’s interests. The result is rising tensions in a region of the world that is notorious for the numerous potential flashpoints that could trigger a war.
Dipetik dari - GlobalResearch.ca
Is Arab democracy of vital interest to US?
America wants to impose a controlled and tamed version in the region, so as to further its influence
Mohammad Fadhel
March 20, 2012
In the past, Arabs experienced a form of western democracy, which was specifically tailored and imposed by foreign occupiers during the colonial period. After the First World War, voters in Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon used to cast their ballots that were supposed to determine which party would form the government. Alongside critical media driven by intellectuals and reformists and rapid modernisation and education, the scene was almost real: an active functioning democracy.
However, this scene was deceptive, as such a democracy had a red line that was not to be crossed: the demand for independence. With the presence of foreign occupiers, the real player who determined the horizons of that democracy were not elected governments or the parliament, which represents the people’s will. It was the colonial political agent who determined the boundaries of democracy.
What did that democracy yield? We know the answer - it was not a real democracy, but a limited and conditional one, simply because it was not supposed to be in conflict with the occupier’s supreme interests whether it was oil or geopolitics. So, if this kind of democracy was planned to develop gradually, definitely it could not have been normal. The greater interests of colonial powers were always placed above democracy in an extremely rude manner. The interference of political agents of the occupiers reached new heights, whether in manipulating local parliaments to impose unfair agreements or when it came to issues related to oil, military bases or economic and commercial concessions. So what was the final outcome of the occupier’s democracy? Nothing, except the emergence of totalitarian inclinations.
No wonder these countries were then ruled by military leaders with popular support, who came to power in a series of military coups — in Iraq from 1937 to 1968, Syria from 1949 to 1970, and Egypt from 1952 until now.
Until recently, democracy was not on the US foreign policy agenda. The political scene in Arab countries ranged from military coups to short periods of civilian rule. During this period, the principle of non-interference was prevailing over the promotion of democracy in American foreign policy.
Yet this explanation remains naive because the military coups that took place in some Arab countries were nothing but a result of a struggle between old colonial powers like Britain and France, and new powers, such as the US and the former Soviet Union.
It was the period during which the US policy succeeded in coexisting with undemocratic regimes. And, whether it was the requirements of the Cold War or the struggle for oil and other interests, democracy in the Arab region was not a priority for the US.
Following the September 11 attacks, it appeared that US officials woke up after a long coma to discover that Arab countries were in need of democracy, but from America’s own perspective that said “the September 11 attacks would not have happened if there was democracy in Arab countries”.
After September 11, democracy became the only topic in the American foreign policy in the Arab region for a while, which was dominated by non-stop pressure and endless initiatives under new guises, as there was no longer a political agent to impose the will of his own country, despite what the example of former US administrator to Iraq, Paul Bremer might suggest.
Yet, this opportunistic linking of a lack of democracy in the Arab world to the September attacks — the biggest and most devastating attacks since the Pearl Harbor — has cast doubts on the credibility of the new US approach. This test failed in the first transparent democratic elections that took place in Palestine in 2006, which Hamas won.
What was the reaction of the US and western countries? The Palestinians who believed the US and cast their votes were punished in the largest ever campaign of humiliation, on the hypocritical pretext that Hamas was a “terrorist” group. In this case, democracy was not the issue, but the interests of Israel.
This clearly means that for the US, Arab democracy is conditional upon the acceptance of co-existence with Israel as an occupying power.
There are historical precedents in Latin America. For instance, when former leftist Chilean president Salvador Allende formed his elected government in 1970, the US supported a military coup by General Augusto Pinochet on September 11, 1973.
This led to the establishment of a brutal regime that ruled until 1990. This means the US embraces an unchanged policy that does not differentiate between leftists and Islamists.
US foreign policy has nothing to do with ideology, as it only cares about the kind of democracy it wants. The US wants to impose a “designed and tamed democracy” in the Arab region, so as to protect its own interests.
The US position will never change, and there is evidence to support this assertion.
An Arab reformist movement (one of whose demands was developing education curricula) which existed since the mid-1850s during Ottoman rule, was crushed by colonial powers, just because its demands could have affected the interests of these powers when there was a struggle for independence.
Similarly, the US, since 2001, spoke about reforms, which was a demand of the Arab intellectual elite since the 1980s.
However, with the US pushing for democratisation in the Arab world, reform became tantamount to treason. Another paradox: in 1930s and 1940s social forces which were engaged in bringing western-style democracy were accused of treachery.
What does this mean? Primarily, democracy never got a chance to develop normally in Arab countries. In contrast, democracy was impeded by the resistance of the ruling elites to change, as well as by foreign interference which always leads to reverse implications.
Foreign interference usually harms democracy in the Arab world as it is meant to restrain and suppress the internal reform movement by determining a specified limit that must not be crossed. In conclusion, the conditions for democracy that existed in the colonial era still remain.
Dipetik dari - gulfnews
Mohammad Fadhel
March 20, 2012
In the past, Arabs experienced a form of western democracy, which was specifically tailored and imposed by foreign occupiers during the colonial period. After the First World War, voters in Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon used to cast their ballots that were supposed to determine which party would form the government. Alongside critical media driven by intellectuals and reformists and rapid modernisation and education, the scene was almost real: an active functioning democracy.
However, this scene was deceptive, as such a democracy had a red line that was not to be crossed: the demand for independence. With the presence of foreign occupiers, the real player who determined the horizons of that democracy were not elected governments or the parliament, which represents the people’s will. It was the colonial political agent who determined the boundaries of democracy.
What did that democracy yield? We know the answer - it was not a real democracy, but a limited and conditional one, simply because it was not supposed to be in conflict with the occupier’s supreme interests whether it was oil or geopolitics. So, if this kind of democracy was planned to develop gradually, definitely it could not have been normal. The greater interests of colonial powers were always placed above democracy in an extremely rude manner. The interference of political agents of the occupiers reached new heights, whether in manipulating local parliaments to impose unfair agreements or when it came to issues related to oil, military bases or economic and commercial concessions. So what was the final outcome of the occupier’s democracy? Nothing, except the emergence of totalitarian inclinations.
No wonder these countries were then ruled by military leaders with popular support, who came to power in a series of military coups — in Iraq from 1937 to 1968, Syria from 1949 to 1970, and Egypt from 1952 until now.
Until recently, democracy was not on the US foreign policy agenda. The political scene in Arab countries ranged from military coups to short periods of civilian rule. During this period, the principle of non-interference was prevailing over the promotion of democracy in American foreign policy.
Yet this explanation remains naive because the military coups that took place in some Arab countries were nothing but a result of a struggle between old colonial powers like Britain and France, and new powers, such as the US and the former Soviet Union.
It was the period during which the US policy succeeded in coexisting with undemocratic regimes. And, whether it was the requirements of the Cold War or the struggle for oil and other interests, democracy in the Arab region was not a priority for the US.
Following the September 11 attacks, it appeared that US officials woke up after a long coma to discover that Arab countries were in need of democracy, but from America’s own perspective that said “the September 11 attacks would not have happened if there was democracy in Arab countries”.
After September 11, democracy became the only topic in the American foreign policy in the Arab region for a while, which was dominated by non-stop pressure and endless initiatives under new guises, as there was no longer a political agent to impose the will of his own country, despite what the example of former US administrator to Iraq, Paul Bremer might suggest.
Yet, this opportunistic linking of a lack of democracy in the Arab world to the September attacks — the biggest and most devastating attacks since the Pearl Harbor — has cast doubts on the credibility of the new US approach. This test failed in the first transparent democratic elections that took place in Palestine in 2006, which Hamas won.
What was the reaction of the US and western countries? The Palestinians who believed the US and cast their votes were punished in the largest ever campaign of humiliation, on the hypocritical pretext that Hamas was a “terrorist” group. In this case, democracy was not the issue, but the interests of Israel.
This clearly means that for the US, Arab democracy is conditional upon the acceptance of co-existence with Israel as an occupying power.
There are historical precedents in Latin America. For instance, when former leftist Chilean president Salvador Allende formed his elected government in 1970, the US supported a military coup by General Augusto Pinochet on September 11, 1973.
This led to the establishment of a brutal regime that ruled until 1990. This means the US embraces an unchanged policy that does not differentiate between leftists and Islamists.
US foreign policy has nothing to do with ideology, as it only cares about the kind of democracy it wants. The US wants to impose a “designed and tamed democracy” in the Arab region, so as to protect its own interests.
The US position will never change, and there is evidence to support this assertion.
An Arab reformist movement (one of whose demands was developing education curricula) which existed since the mid-1850s during Ottoman rule, was crushed by colonial powers, just because its demands could have affected the interests of these powers when there was a struggle for independence.
Similarly, the US, since 2001, spoke about reforms, which was a demand of the Arab intellectual elite since the 1980s.
However, with the US pushing for democratisation in the Arab world, reform became tantamount to treason. Another paradox: in 1930s and 1940s social forces which were engaged in bringing western-style democracy were accused of treachery.
What does this mean? Primarily, democracy never got a chance to develop normally in Arab countries. In contrast, democracy was impeded by the resistance of the ruling elites to change, as well as by foreign interference which always leads to reverse implications.
Foreign interference usually harms democracy in the Arab world as it is meant to restrain and suppress the internal reform movement by determining a specified limit that must not be crossed. In conclusion, the conditions for democracy that existed in the colonial era still remain.
Dipetik dari - gulfnews
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
America’s ‘return’ to Asia poses challenge for ASEAN
Simon Tay
March 19, 2012
Much intent has followed the Obama administration’s policy to return American focus to Asia.
Some Republicans say they never left, but many in Asia and especially Southeast Asia feel a change in both perception and action.
Summitry with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is at a new high point, and the United States’ presence is strongly felt on competing claims in the South China Sea.
Many welcome the renewed attention, but questions arise about American intentions and staying power vis-a-vis a rising China. In Beijing, reactions to the American “pivot” seem mixed to negative. Myanmar sets a stark example with dramatic political changes opening to the West.
Some see America’s return, and Chinese retreat, and it is easy to imagine an emerging contention - if not in military terms, then in a competition for influence. Would a similar logic apply to all Southeast Asia?
Maybe. But countries in the region are not blank pages on which great powers can freely write. Attitudes and actions of the countries in between can matter. Look again at Myanmar.
Most believe China’s increasing dominance made Myanmar’s leaders uncomfortable. But the effort to bring in others does not necessarily exclude China. While much attention was given to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit, few noticed that Beijing concluded a strategic agreement just before she arrived.
Inescapable geography requires continuing cooperation with a giant and growing neighbour. So, rather than a switch to the West, what is developing may be better described as a shift in balance. Similar considerations must be in the minds of other Southeast Asians.
Indonesia is larger and further away but its major exports of energy and other resources are sold to the Chinese market. Growth there drives Indonesia’s economy. Enter President Barack Obama, leveraging his personal connection from early years living in Jakarta and recognising Indonesia’s importance.
A comprehensive partnership between the two countries was launched in November 2010 and, one year later, a US$600 million (RM1.8 billion) Millennium Challenge compact was added to help reduce poverty. Indonesia-US ties have broadened and deepened. Yet military-to-military ties have been slower. Indonesia has been adroit in also managing relations with China to ensure continuing parity.
Policies in Vietnam seem less balanced. While some issues still linger from the war, security cooperation with the United States is growing rapidly. In 2010, the two held their first Defence Policy Dialogue. Port calls by American military vessels are up and naval drills have been held - said to focus on maintenance and navigation.
This all comes, moreover, after concerns escalated about the South China Sea, over which Vietnam has in the past clashed with China and lost lives. Hanoi seems intent on bringing America in to counter potential Chinese aggression. On the economic front, Washington has reciprocated by bringing in Vietnam into the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership for deeper integration.
In contrast, Sino-Vietnamese ties have been unsettled. China’s Embassy in Hanoi has been subject to street protests — which many believe must have been allowed or even arranged by the authorities. Vietnam has also signed an agreement with India to explore oil in areas that are claimed by China.
These examples show ASEAN countries are by no means passive in ties with the US. The question is whether US actions will help maintain peace in the region or turn provocative. It also remains to be seen whether each country will go its own way or if ASEAN can find coherence and balance.
The group is diverse and has not instituted a common security or foreign policy, unlike the European Union.
But ASEAN has banded together before to deal with conflicts, like the occupation of Cambodia and the Vietnam War. It may now again be timely for ASEAN members to harmonise their policies in dealing with the US with regards to China.
The American return to Asia does not necessarily lead to conflict with the place of China today and into the future. But much depends not only on what these two giants do but how others in Asia respond.
ASEAN can try to agree, at least, on what provocations to avoid. Approaches to be even-handed and avoid the perception of siding with one or the other can also be shared.
This will not be easy but is key to preserving ASEAN unity as US-China competition heats up. If ASEAN countries take a more coherent and balanced approach, they can increase hopes for continuing peace.
Dipetik dari - The Malaysian Insider
Lagi posting berkaitan,
--> Pacific big enough for all of us, says China
--> China will not go to war over Spratlys
--> China tells US: Respect our interests in Asia
--> China's military budget tops US$100b
--> Brunei perlu lebih peka terhadap isu serantau
--> Oil exploration in disputed Spratlys to proceed
--> Manila ignores China, renews Spratly oil hunt
--> Ex-Chinese envoys to Philippines: Keep US out
--> India tells Asean it believes in ‘open’ South China Sea
--> Malaysia's correct strategic decision
--> Russian wrinkle in the South China Sea
--> Exclusive: U.S. military seeks more access in Philippines
--> New naval warship completes first patrol mission off Spratlys islands
--> Progressives slam Aquino’s mendicancy, sellout to US imperial interests
--> US, Filipino Forces Plan Drills Near Disputed Area
--> Dispute over oil rich islands in South China Sea could escalate into 'state-on-state conflict', U.S. admiral warns
--> Philippines ready to validate claim to Spratlys in UN forum
--> Manila protests Chinese ships' presence in Spratlys
--> Philippines rejects new Chinese territorial claim
March 19, 2012
Much intent has followed the Obama administration’s policy to return American focus to Asia.
Some Republicans say they never left, but many in Asia and especially Southeast Asia feel a change in both perception and action.
Summitry with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is at a new high point, and the United States’ presence is strongly felt on competing claims in the South China Sea.
Many welcome the renewed attention, but questions arise about American intentions and staying power vis-a-vis a rising China. In Beijing, reactions to the American “pivot” seem mixed to negative. Myanmar sets a stark example with dramatic political changes opening to the West.
Some see America’s return, and Chinese retreat, and it is easy to imagine an emerging contention - if not in military terms, then in a competition for influence. Would a similar logic apply to all Southeast Asia?
Maybe. But countries in the region are not blank pages on which great powers can freely write. Attitudes and actions of the countries in between can matter. Look again at Myanmar.
Most believe China’s increasing dominance made Myanmar’s leaders uncomfortable. But the effort to bring in others does not necessarily exclude China. While much attention was given to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s visit, few noticed that Beijing concluded a strategic agreement just before she arrived.
Inescapable geography requires continuing cooperation with a giant and growing neighbour. So, rather than a switch to the West, what is developing may be better described as a shift in balance. Similar considerations must be in the minds of other Southeast Asians.
Indonesia is larger and further away but its major exports of energy and other resources are sold to the Chinese market. Growth there drives Indonesia’s economy. Enter President Barack Obama, leveraging his personal connection from early years living in Jakarta and recognising Indonesia’s importance.
A comprehensive partnership between the two countries was launched in November 2010 and, one year later, a US$600 million (RM1.8 billion) Millennium Challenge compact was added to help reduce poverty. Indonesia-US ties have broadened and deepened. Yet military-to-military ties have been slower. Indonesia has been adroit in also managing relations with China to ensure continuing parity.
Policies in Vietnam seem less balanced. While some issues still linger from the war, security cooperation with the United States is growing rapidly. In 2010, the two held their first Defence Policy Dialogue. Port calls by American military vessels are up and naval drills have been held - said to focus on maintenance and navigation.
This all comes, moreover, after concerns escalated about the South China Sea, over which Vietnam has in the past clashed with China and lost lives. Hanoi seems intent on bringing America in to counter potential Chinese aggression. On the economic front, Washington has reciprocated by bringing in Vietnam into the US-led Trans-Pacific Partnership for deeper integration.
In contrast, Sino-Vietnamese ties have been unsettled. China’s Embassy in Hanoi has been subject to street protests — which many believe must have been allowed or even arranged by the authorities. Vietnam has also signed an agreement with India to explore oil in areas that are claimed by China.
These examples show ASEAN countries are by no means passive in ties with the US. The question is whether US actions will help maintain peace in the region or turn provocative. It also remains to be seen whether each country will go its own way or if ASEAN can find coherence and balance.
The group is diverse and has not instituted a common security or foreign policy, unlike the European Union.
But ASEAN has banded together before to deal with conflicts, like the occupation of Cambodia and the Vietnam War. It may now again be timely for ASEAN members to harmonise their policies in dealing with the US with regards to China.
The American return to Asia does not necessarily lead to conflict with the place of China today and into the future. But much depends not only on what these two giants do but how others in Asia respond.
ASEAN can try to agree, at least, on what provocations to avoid. Approaches to be even-handed and avoid the perception of siding with one or the other can also be shared.
This will not be easy but is key to preserving ASEAN unity as US-China competition heats up. If ASEAN countries take a more coherent and balanced approach, they can increase hopes for continuing peace.
Dipetik dari - The Malaysian Insider
Lagi posting berkaitan,
--> Pacific big enough for all of us, says China
--> China will not go to war over Spratlys
--> China tells US: Respect our interests in Asia
--> China's military budget tops US$100b
--> Brunei perlu lebih peka terhadap isu serantau
--> Oil exploration in disputed Spratlys to proceed
--> Manila ignores China, renews Spratly oil hunt
--> Ex-Chinese envoys to Philippines: Keep US out
--> India tells Asean it believes in ‘open’ South China Sea
--> Malaysia's correct strategic decision
--> Russian wrinkle in the South China Sea
--> Exclusive: U.S. military seeks more access in Philippines
--> New naval warship completes first patrol mission off Spratlys islands
--> Progressives slam Aquino’s mendicancy, sellout to US imperial interests
--> US, Filipino Forces Plan Drills Near Disputed Area
--> Dispute over oil rich islands in South China Sea could escalate into 'state-on-state conflict', U.S. admiral warns
--> Philippines ready to validate claim to Spratlys in UN forum
--> Manila protests Chinese ships' presence in Spratlys
--> Philippines rejects new Chinese territorial claim
Bolehkah berpendirian atas pagar?
APAKAH pandangan dan nasihat Tuan Guru kepada golongan orang Islam atas pagar, yang sengaja tidak mempedulikan hal politik, hatta ada yang tidak mendaftar sebagai pengundi. Ini kerana pada mereka PAS atau KeADILan atau Umno, sama sahaja, berkepentingan sendiri-sendiri, dan tidak memberi keuntungan apa-apa kepada orang ramai, melainkan sekadar ala kadar sahaja. Mohon Tuan Guru béri pandangan dan nasihat.
ZULKIFLI MAARUF, KUALA LUMPUR
ALLAH SWT mencipta manusia dengan sebaik-baik kejadian. Ditunjuk jalan kepadanya dengan jelas dan terang, iaitu satu jalan yang ditunjukkan, dengan beriman sepenuhnya kepada Allah SWT dan mematuhi segala titah perintah-Nya. Yang akhirnya mereka akan dimasukkan ke dalam syurga dan bahagia mereka buat selama-lamanya.
Satu lagi, jalan melawan atau menderhakai Allah, yang akhirnya terseksa mereka selama-lamanya.
Untuk ke syurga, tidak mungkin hanya dengan berangan-angan, tanpa amal dan jihad. Perjuangan dan pengorbanan adalah tuntutan Islam.
Sama dengan soal penghidupan di dunia, jika kita tidak berusaha bersungguh-sungguh, mana mungkin kehidupan yang sementara ini, akan memperolehi kesenangan, kemewahan dan kebahagiaan.
Demikian dengan balasan syurga di akhirat. Mana mungkin tanpa usaha yang bersungguh-sungguh, berjuang dan berjihad kerana Allah SWT, yang memungkinkan kita mendapat balasan yang baik di akhirat kelak.
Allah SWT dalam al-Quranul Karim mengingatkan kita dengan firman-Nya (mafhumnya):
"Katakanlah (wahai Muhammad): “Mahukah Kami khabarkan kepada kamu akan orang-orang yang paling rugi amal-amal perbuatannya?"
"(Iaitu) orang-orang yang telah sia-sia amal usahanya dalam kehidupan dunia ini, sedang mereka menyangka bahawa mereka sentiasa betul dan baik pada apa sahaja yang mereka lakukan."
"Merekalah orang-orang yang kufur ingkar akan ayat-ayat Tuhan mereka dan akan pertemuan dengan-Nya; oleh itu gugurlah amal-amal mereka; maka akibatnya Kami tidak akan memberi sebarang timbangan untuk menilai amal mereka, pada hari kiamat kelak." (Surah al-Kahfi ayat 103-105)
Orang atas pagar menyangka mereka sudah betul dan tidak perlu campur hal-hal politik, sedangkan mereka telah diperintah Allah melalui lidah Rasul-Nya, dalam sebuah hadis yang sahih (mafhumnya):
"Sesiapa yang melihat perkara mungkar, hendaklah diubah (ditentang) kemungkaran itu dengan tangannya (kuasanya), jika tidak boleh, hendaklah ditentang dengan lidahnya (kata-katanya) dan sekiranya tidak boleh juga, hendaklah dilawan dengan hatinya, yang demikian itu adalah selemah-lemah iman."
Kemungkaran berlaku dengan berleluasa dalam negara kita. Khasnya apa yang dilakukan pemerintah, kerana membelakangi Islam yang syumul, sedangkan PAS berjuang untuk melaksanakan Islam yang syumul, memerlukan sokongan dan dukungan orang Islam.
Sekarang, ramai orang tidak Islam, menjadi penyokong PAS sehingga tertubuhnya Dewan Himpunan Penyokong PAS, yang terdiri daripada kalangan bukan Islam.
Sedangkan orang Islam sendiri, berdiri di atas pagar. Cuba renung-renungkan.
Orang atas pagar, seolah-olah tidak termasuk langsung di kalangan tiga golongan seperti soalan saudara.
Ada satu hadis lain, Nabi s.a.w bersabda (mahfumnya):
"Kalau sudah tidak diperjuangkan untuk mengubah kemungkaran tadi, dengan semua atau salah satu dari tiga usaha, maka iman seseorang itu tidak tinggal padanya, meskipun sebesar bijian yang terkecil."
Persoalannya, bolehkah kita masuk syurga Allah dengan iman yang sedemikian? Oleh kerana itu, nasihat saya, insafilah diri dan tanamlah dalam hati, bahawa beramal dengan amalan yang salih, khasnya berjihad pada jalan Allah untuk memartabatkan Islam, adalah suatu kewajipan asas, yang wajib ditanggung oleh setiap orang Muslim.
Seperti mana yang ditanggung pada zaman awal Islam dahulu, tugas menyebar Islam, memperjuangkannya, sehingga melibatkan peperangan demi peperangan, ditanggung oleh umat Islam seluruhnya, dengan keupayaan masing-masing.
Yang terkorban kerana mempertahankan agama Allah, mereka akan dimasukkan ke dalam syurga Allah. Yang menentang hukum Allah, atau yang berdiam diri, atau hanya sebagai penonton, mereka akan rugi dengan amalan mereka ini. Kelak, mereka akan bertemu dengan hukuman Allah SWT di akhirat. Sekian, wallahua'lam.
Dipetik dari - Harakah, 19-22 Mac 2012.
Semoga intipati tulisan ini dapat diambil pengajaran dan memberi manfaat kepada warga NDP.
Posting berkaitan sebelum ini,
--> BILAKAH SULTAN MENJADI BAYANGAN ALLAH DI BUMI?
--> AGAMA SERING MENJADI MANGSA
--> Sombong bukan akhlak ahli PAS
--> TINDAKAN DISIPLIN SATU TARBIAH
--> Hijrah Pengajaran Untuk Perjuangan
--> Hukum dakwa hudud 'out-of-date'
--> KEHIDUPAN MUNAFIK SENTIASA SEMPIT
--> Akhlak dan disiplin berorganisasi (Siri Akhir)
--> Akhlak dan disiplin berorganisasi (Siri 1)
--> ANBIYA HADAPI KEJAHATAN PEMBESAR NEGARA
Monday, March 19, 2012
Islam, democracy are compatible, says Mirwaiz
Hurriyat chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq on Friday dispelled the notion that Islam and democracy are mismatch saying “the two are compatible” and sought right to self determination for people of Kashmir at a United Nations’ convention in Switzerland.
“The Arab Spring shows Islam and democracy are compatible. Islam as a religion contains seeds of democratic principles and practices. Islamic scholars cite the principal and institution of shura (religious body),” the Mirwaiz told the gathering in his speech made during 19th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council Geneva, Switzerland.
Speaking on the topic ‘Democracy & Self-determination’, the Mirwaiz said, “Year 2011 and 2012 have proved to be one of the most dramatic periods in recent history about democratic rights and the issue of right of self-determination, and it is only half finished.”
Referring to countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya, the Mirwaiz said peoples’ protests toppled long-entrenched oppressive regimes to restore democracy.
Advocating for a democratic set up in the Muslim world, the Mirwaiz said, “Democracy must shape the various nations in the Muslim world and it is our obligation to make it happen.”
Seeking right to self-determination for people of Kashmir, the separatist leader referred to the covenants of the UN. “These Covenants, unlike resolutions, are binding in international law on the ratifying countries, subject to any reservation at the time of ratification. India ratified the covenants on April 10, 1979,” said the Mirwaiz.
The Mirwaiz claimed the denial of this right to people of Kashmir has brought two neighboring countries, India and Pakistan, to the brink of nuclear catastrophe.
“Kashmir has been brutally victimized by human rights violations perpetrated by thousands of military and paramilitary personnel. During the past two decades alone, more than 100,000 Kashmiris were killed because of India's mammoth military occupation,” alleged the Mirwaiz.
Claiming seven lakh soldiers’ presence in Kashmir, the Mirwaiz alleged all peaceful political dissent was being ruthlessly suppressed. “Yet the international community has remained largely passive, and crowned India with a veto power over outside intervention,” he said.
Claiming that bilateralism over the Kashmir issue has failed, the Mirwaiz said, “The Hurriyat was willing to forgo international facilitation, provided both the governments of India and Pakistan agree that the Hurriyat leadership will be fully associated with the peace process at a later stage”.
The Mirwaiz warned that people of any religion will turn to violence if all peaceful avenues of dissent are not available. “It is our duty to redouble our efforts to bring peace and justice to the whole world, not through brutal force, or dictatorial regimes or military might but through the weapons of moral persuasion, democratic values and universal principles,” he said.
Assuring the audience of acting as bridge between nations in South Asia, the Mirwaiz said he wants to see a better and a brighter tomorrow for the whole South Asian region.
Dipetik dari - Hindustan Times
“The Arab Spring shows Islam and democracy are compatible. Islam as a religion contains seeds of democratic principles and practices. Islamic scholars cite the principal and institution of shura (religious body),” the Mirwaiz told the gathering in his speech made during 19th Session of the United Nations Human Rights Council Geneva, Switzerland.
Speaking on the topic ‘Democracy & Self-determination’, the Mirwaiz said, “Year 2011 and 2012 have proved to be one of the most dramatic periods in recent history about democratic rights and the issue of right of self-determination, and it is only half finished.”
Referring to countries like Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen and Libya, the Mirwaiz said peoples’ protests toppled long-entrenched oppressive regimes to restore democracy.
Advocating for a democratic set up in the Muslim world, the Mirwaiz said, “Democracy must shape the various nations in the Muslim world and it is our obligation to make it happen.”
Seeking right to self-determination for people of Kashmir, the separatist leader referred to the covenants of the UN. “These Covenants, unlike resolutions, are binding in international law on the ratifying countries, subject to any reservation at the time of ratification. India ratified the covenants on April 10, 1979,” said the Mirwaiz.
The Mirwaiz claimed the denial of this right to people of Kashmir has brought two neighboring countries, India and Pakistan, to the brink of nuclear catastrophe.
“Kashmir has been brutally victimized by human rights violations perpetrated by thousands of military and paramilitary personnel. During the past two decades alone, more than 100,000 Kashmiris were killed because of India's mammoth military occupation,” alleged the Mirwaiz.
Claiming seven lakh soldiers’ presence in Kashmir, the Mirwaiz alleged all peaceful political dissent was being ruthlessly suppressed. “Yet the international community has remained largely passive, and crowned India with a veto power over outside intervention,” he said.
Claiming that bilateralism over the Kashmir issue has failed, the Mirwaiz said, “The Hurriyat was willing to forgo international facilitation, provided both the governments of India and Pakistan agree that the Hurriyat leadership will be fully associated with the peace process at a later stage”.
The Mirwaiz warned that people of any religion will turn to violence if all peaceful avenues of dissent are not available. “It is our duty to redouble our efforts to bring peace and justice to the whole world, not through brutal force, or dictatorial regimes or military might but through the weapons of moral persuasion, democratic values and universal principles,” he said.
Assuring the audience of acting as bridge between nations in South Asia, the Mirwaiz said he wants to see a better and a brighter tomorrow for the whole South Asian region.
Dipetik dari - Hindustan Times
King who steered Tonga towards democracy dies aged 63
George Tupou V – known to outside world for eccentricities including penchant for wearing top hat – has died in Hong Kong
The king of Tonga, George Tupou V, who was credited with introducing democracy to the South Pacific archipelago after riots following his ascension in 2006, died in a Hong Kong hospital on Sunday.
His younger brother, Crown Prince Tupouto'a Lavaka, who is heir to the throne, was with him when he died at the age of 63.
Tongan radio read a government statement announcing his death. The prime minister, Lord Siale'ataonga Tu'ivakano, declared that the royal family and entire nation was in mourning, ending his address with a Tongan expression meaning "The sun has set".
On ascending the throne after the death of his father, King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV, the Oxford-educated king said he would relinquish most of his power in the last Polynesian monarchy and be guided by his prime minister's recommendations on most matters.
The first direct elections were held in November 2010 after 165 years of feudal rule.
Tongan media reports say the king underwent a liver transplant last year and had also been diagnosed with cancer.
The king was known to the outside world for eccentricities such as being driven around in a London taxi, and will be remembered by many for his throwback fashion choices, which included wearing, at times, a top hat and even a monocle.
New Zealand's prime minister, John Key, released a statement saying that his thoughts were with the people of Tonga.
"I would like to acknowledge the very valuable contribution the king has made in steering Tonga towards democracy and hope this work will continue," Key said. "He believed that the monarchy was an instrument of change and can truly be seen as the architect of evolving democracy in Tonga. This will be his enduring legacy."
Tonga, which comprises 170 islands, has a population of 106,000 and lies south of Samoa, about 1,320 miles northeast of New Zealand.
Dipetik dari - The Guardian
The king of Tonga, George Tupou V, who was credited with introducing democracy to the South Pacific archipelago after riots following his ascension in 2006, died in a Hong Kong hospital on Sunday.
His younger brother, Crown Prince Tupouto'a Lavaka, who is heir to the throne, was with him when he died at the age of 63.
Tongan radio read a government statement announcing his death. The prime minister, Lord Siale'ataonga Tu'ivakano, declared that the royal family and entire nation was in mourning, ending his address with a Tongan expression meaning "The sun has set".
On ascending the throne after the death of his father, King Taufa'ahau Tupou IV, the Oxford-educated king said he would relinquish most of his power in the last Polynesian monarchy and be guided by his prime minister's recommendations on most matters.
The first direct elections were held in November 2010 after 165 years of feudal rule.
Tongan media reports say the king underwent a liver transplant last year and had also been diagnosed with cancer.
The king was known to the outside world for eccentricities such as being driven around in a London taxi, and will be remembered by many for his throwback fashion choices, which included wearing, at times, a top hat and even a monocle.
New Zealand's prime minister, John Key, released a statement saying that his thoughts were with the people of Tonga.
"I would like to acknowledge the very valuable contribution the king has made in steering Tonga towards democracy and hope this work will continue," Key said. "He believed that the monarchy was an instrument of change and can truly be seen as the architect of evolving democracy in Tonga. This will be his enduring legacy."
Tonga, which comprises 170 islands, has a population of 106,000 and lies south of Samoa, about 1,320 miles northeast of New Zealand.
Dipetik dari - The Guardian
Pacific big enough for all of us, says China
MANILA - The Chinese ambassador to the Philippines on Wednesday moved to calm growing fears of armed confrontation in the Pacific, where the two countries are locked in a tense territorial row.
The Philippines has responded to what it perceives as heightened Chinese aggressiveness by calling for stepped up military ties with the United States.
And it will hold a large-scale military exercise with the US next month on the main island of Luzon and in Palawan, an island on the Philippines' southwest coast facing the South China Sea.
But Ma Keqing said any such military ties were an internal matter for the Philippines, and that for now China was willing to jointly develop disputed areas in the South China Sea.
"The Pacific is large enough for the US and China. We hope that the US will take a constructive role to make this region more peaceful and stable," the ambassador told reporters.
"It's up to you: military, economic (ties) with other countries. It's a basic principle not to intervene with other's affairs. Every country adopts its policy according to its national conditions."
China and the Philippines, along with Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei have competing claims over large parts of the South China Sea including the Spratly islands.
The territorial dispute over the waters, which are believed to sit atop vast deposits of gas and oil, has for decades been regarded as one of Asia's potential military flashpoints.
Tensions rose last year after the Philippines accused China of aggressive actions including an incident where Chinese vessels fired on Filipino fishermen and harassed an oil exploration vessel in its waters.
The Philippines responded by calling for stepped-up military ties with the United States, triggering an angry response from China.
However, the ambassador played down the spat and said that while no government could compromise on territorial integrity, the two countries could resort to "joint cooperation" to develop the disputed area until a final decision on the issue.
Ma also said the 11.2 percent increase in China's military budget should not be a concern since its defence spending as a proportion of its total budget will still be lower than the United States, Russia, India or Brazil.
Dipetik dari - AsiaOne.com
Lagi posting berkaitan,
--> China will not go to war over Spratlys
--> China tells US: Respect our interests in Asia
--> China's military budget tops US$100b
--> Brunei perlu lebih peka terhadap isu serantau
--> Oil exploration in disputed Spratlys to proceed
--> Manila ignores China, renews Spratly oil hunt
--> Ex-Chinese envoys to Philippines: Keep US out
--> India tells Asean it believes in ‘open’ South China Sea
--> Malaysia's correct strategic decision
--> Russian wrinkle in the South China Sea
--> Exclusive: U.S. military seeks more access in Philippines
--> New naval warship completes first patrol mission off Spratlys islands
--> Progressives slam Aquino’s mendicancy, sellout to US imperial interests
--> US, Filipino Forces Plan Drills Near Disputed Area
--> Dispute over oil rich islands in South China Sea could escalate into 'state-on-state conflict', U.S. admiral warns
--> Philippines ready to validate claim to Spratlys in UN forum
--> Manila protests Chinese ships' presence in Spratlys
--> Philippines rejects new Chinese territorial claim
The Philippines has responded to what it perceives as heightened Chinese aggressiveness by calling for stepped up military ties with the United States.
And it will hold a large-scale military exercise with the US next month on the main island of Luzon and in Palawan, an island on the Philippines' southwest coast facing the South China Sea.
But Ma Keqing said any such military ties were an internal matter for the Philippines, and that for now China was willing to jointly develop disputed areas in the South China Sea.
"The Pacific is large enough for the US and China. We hope that the US will take a constructive role to make this region more peaceful and stable," the ambassador told reporters.
"It's up to you: military, economic (ties) with other countries. It's a basic principle not to intervene with other's affairs. Every country adopts its policy according to its national conditions."
China and the Philippines, along with Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and Brunei have competing claims over large parts of the South China Sea including the Spratly islands.
The territorial dispute over the waters, which are believed to sit atop vast deposits of gas and oil, has for decades been regarded as one of Asia's potential military flashpoints.
Tensions rose last year after the Philippines accused China of aggressive actions including an incident where Chinese vessels fired on Filipino fishermen and harassed an oil exploration vessel in its waters.
The Philippines responded by calling for stepped-up military ties with the United States, triggering an angry response from China.
However, the ambassador played down the spat and said that while no government could compromise on territorial integrity, the two countries could resort to "joint cooperation" to develop the disputed area until a final decision on the issue.
Ma also said the 11.2 percent increase in China's military budget should not be a concern since its defence spending as a proportion of its total budget will still be lower than the United States, Russia, India or Brazil.
Dipetik dari - AsiaOne.com
Lagi posting berkaitan,
--> China will not go to war over Spratlys
--> China tells US: Respect our interests in Asia
--> China's military budget tops US$100b
--> Brunei perlu lebih peka terhadap isu serantau
--> Oil exploration in disputed Spratlys to proceed
--> Manila ignores China, renews Spratly oil hunt
--> Ex-Chinese envoys to Philippines: Keep US out
--> India tells Asean it believes in ‘open’ South China Sea
--> Malaysia's correct strategic decision
--> Russian wrinkle in the South China Sea
--> Exclusive: U.S. military seeks more access in Philippines
--> New naval warship completes first patrol mission off Spratlys islands
--> Progressives slam Aquino’s mendicancy, sellout to US imperial interests
--> US, Filipino Forces Plan Drills Near Disputed Area
--> Dispute over oil rich islands in South China Sea could escalate into 'state-on-state conflict', U.S. admiral warns
--> Philippines ready to validate claim to Spratlys in UN forum
--> Manila protests Chinese ships' presence in Spratlys
--> Philippines rejects new Chinese territorial claim
Thursday, March 15, 2012
DAA aims to help farmers produce eight tonnes per hectare of paddy
By Azaraimy HH
The Department of Agriculture and Agrifood (DAA) hopes to eventually help farmers produce higher than the current three to four metric tonnes per hectare of paddy, with some already able to achieve seven to eight metric tonnes per hectare through the introduction of high productivity paddy variants.
Additionally, the 'Farmers School', which was set up as a capacity-building initiative, is currently helping farmers to achieve better produce, as farmers in the past were only able to produce around one metric tonne per hectare of paddy production.
This will hopefully further improve the level of the nation's self-sufficiency in rice.
This matter was highlighted at the ongoing 8th Legislative Council session by Yang Berhormat Pehin Orang Kaya Seri Utama Dato Seri Setia Awg Hj Yahya bin Begawan Mudim Dato Paduka Hj Bakar, the Minister of Industry and Primary Resources, who was answering enquiries by the LegCo representative member from Temburong, YB Awg Hj Sulaiman bin Hj Ahad, on the steps taken to improve paddy production.
YB Pehin Dato Hj Yahya explained that currently the ministry continues to introduce high productivity paddy variants, and that there are farmers who have achieved seven to eight metric tonnes per hectare.
Other than the high productivity variant, the minister also highlighted the importance of paddy variants that have defence capabilities against known diseases.
He also highlighted that the ministry will continue to look into new cultivation technologies, be it in field preparations or in harvesting technology - for example, utilising various technologies, including machines that reduce wastage during harvesting.
In field preparations, machine technologies that use less labour can also be utilised as well as in planting technology.
YB Pehin Dato Hj Yahya clarified that works are now being carried out by the DAA to improve infrastructure and solve irrigation problems at several paddy cultivation areas in the Temburong District, including installing pump houses and water reservoirs.
He said that these works will take a long time to show results. Nevertheless, with the help of the Public Works Department, some improvement works are also being carried out.
Dipetik dari - Borneo Bulletin
Ikuti posting yang berkaitan sebelum ini,
--> Negara rancang import beras negara lain
--> $20m rice cultivation project budget pushed
--> Temporary Relief from Global Starvation
--> Meeting agriculture targets in Brunei
--> Boosting rice yield long-term agenda
--> 'Bangladesh can help Brunei yield rice varieties to meet 2035 self-sufficiency target'
--> Pertanian, agrimakanan memberangsangkan
--> BERAS ‘LAILA’ SASAR PENGELUARAN CAPAI SARA DIRI
--> Penuaian padi besar-besaran beras ‘Laila’ dijangka pertengahan bulan Ogos depan
--> SAYA KELIRU..... TOLONG BERI PENJELASAN.....
--> BANJIR DI INDOCHINA - KESAN TERHADAP KESELAMATAN PERMAKANAN DI NEGARA-NEGARA ASEAN
PPN terus sokong undang-undang syari'ah
Oleh Sim Y. H.
BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN, 13 Mac - Pejabat Peguam Negara (PPN) terus menyokong hasrat Kebawah Duli Yang Maha Mulia Paduka Seri Baginda Sultan Dan Yang Di-Pertuan Negara Brunei Darussalam untuk melihat Perintah Kanun Hukuman Jenayah Syari'ah dan Perintah Kanun Peraturan Jenayah Mahkamah Syari'ah diluluskan, oleh itu pegawai-pegawai Pejabat Peguam Negara telah menghadiri secara tetap mesyuarat-mesyuarat Majlis Ugama Islam dan Jawatankuasa Menyesuaikan Undang-Undang Menurut Kehendak Ugama Islam bagi memberikan bantuan undang-undang yang diperlukan dan mengenai penggubalan undang-undang.
Perkara itu dijelaskan oleh, Peguam Negara, Yang Berhormat Datin Seri Paduka Hajah Hayati binti Pehin Orang Kaya Shahbandar Dato Seri Paduka Haji Mohd Salleh (gambar) ketika menyampaikan ucapan di Pembukaan Tahun Undang-Undang 2012 yang berlangsung di Mahkamah Tinggi, hari ini.
"Sokongan Pejabat Peguam Negara sudah setentunya tertakluk kepada panduan yang diberikan oleh Majlis Ugama Islam dan pakar-pakar dalam Undang-Undang Syari'ah."
Sementara itu dalam ucapannya, Presiden Persatuan Undang-Undang, Haji Muhammad Zainidi bin Haji Abdul Hamid menyatakan sokongan terhadap hasrat Baginda Sultan bagi pelaksanaan penuh prinsip-prinsip dan undang-undang syari'ah.
Sehubungan itu, beliau berkata bahawa Persatuan Undang-Undang bersedia untuk mengambil bahagian dan memberikan pandangan berhubungan dengan perkara berkenan serta membantu dan menyumbang ke arah pelaksanaan perkara yang akan memberikan manfaat kepada masyarakat.
Sementara itu menyentuh mengenai perubahan pada undang-undang, Haji Muhammad Zainidi berharap bagi pembaharuan undang-undang, pihak persatuan berharap pihak-pihak yang berkenaan akan dapat mengalu-alukan ahli-ahli persatuan untuk memberikan pandangan serta mengambil bahagian dalam penggubalan undang-undang baru yang akan memberi kesan kepada orang ramai dan juga ahli-ahli persatuan.
Beliau percaya bahawa jika ahli-ahli persatuan diberikan peluang akan dapat membantu menyediakan nasihat berguna bagi kebaikan semua pihak.
Menyentuh mengenai dengan klinik nasihat undang-undang yang mula dilaksanakan sejak 2010, Haji Muhammad Zainidi berkata bahawa Persatuan Undang-Undang berharap untuk mengembangkan lagi skop klinik itu ke daerah-daerah lain bergantung pada logistik dan kakitangan-kakitangan dengan harapan lebih banyak peguam akan mengambil bahagian dalam klinik-klinik berkenaan.
Dipetik dari - Media Permata Online
Posting berkaitan sebelum ini,
--> Hukum dakwa hudud 'out-of-date'
--> LANGKAH-LANGKAH KE ARAH PERLAKSANAAN SYARI'AH
--> Masalah dan Halangan dalam pelaksanaan Perundangan Syariah
--> Pandangan sarjana luar mengenai pelaksanaan Undang-undang Islam
--> HUDUD: MALAYSIA PATUT CONTOHI BRUNEI
--> SEGERA LAKSANA HUKUM ALLAH
Negara rancang import beras negara lain
Oleh Normazlina MD dan Mahdi Yassin
BANDAR SERI BEGAWAN, 12 Mac - Beras-beras import Thailand oleh Brunei tidak terjejas kerana kawasan penanaman selamat dan tidak mengalami banjir teruk yang menjejaskan Thailand baru-baru ini.
Perkara itu ditekankan oleh Menteri Kewangan II (Kedua) Yang Berhormat Pehin Orang Kaya Laila Setia Dato Seri Setia Awang Haji Abdul Rahman dalam perbincangan Jabatan Pembekalan Stor Negara dan seterusnya memberitahu bahawa Negara Brunei Darussalam juga ada membuat inisiatif-inisiatif untuk mengimport beras di negara lain selain Thailand seperti dipersoalkan oleh Yang Berhormat Pehin Datu Imam Dato Paduka Seri Setia Ustaz Haji Awang Haji Abdul Hamid bin Bakal.
Pada masa ini, Brunei juga ada mengimporty beras dari Vietnam secara percubaan dan dalam masa yang sama, turut membuat tinjauan untuk meneliti beras-beras dari Kemboja dan Laos sama ada ia layak diimport ke negara ini, tambah Yang Berhormat Pehin.
Selain itu, Menteri Kewangan Kedua juga ada memberitahu bahawa Jabatan Perbekalan Stor Negara sudah pun membuat perancangan untuk membangun semula bangunan-bangunan stor untuk beras dan gula di Kompleks Stor Negara di Gadong secara berpringkat-peringkat dan akan merobohkan ruang stor lama untuk memberi ruang pembangunan stor baru di tapak kawasan itu.
Stor-stor sedia ada yang masih dalam keadaan baik akan sentiasa diperbaiki dan dibangunkan semula.
Dipetik dari - Media Permata Online
Ikuti posting yang berkaitan sebelum ini,
--> $20m rice cultivation project budget pushed
--> Temporary Relief from Global Starvation
--> Meeting agriculture targets in Brunei
--> Boosting rice yield long-term agenda
--> 'Bangladesh can help Brunei yield rice varieties to meet 2035 self-sufficiency target'
--> Pertanian, agrimakanan memberangsangkan
--> BERAS ‘LAILA’ SASAR PENGELUARAN CAPAI SARA DIRI
--> Penuaian padi besar-besaran beras ‘Laila’ dijangka pertengahan bulan Ogos depan
--> SAYA KELIRU..... TOLONG BERI PENJELASAN.....
--> BANJIR DI INDOCHINA - KESAN TERHADAP KESELAMATAN PERMAKANAN DI NEGARA-NEGARA ASEAN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)