CATCH ME IF U CAN!

After three years of investigations into the atrocities in Sudan’s ravaged western province, the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Luis Moreno-Ocampo concluded a genocide is going on in Darfur. The mastermind behind it all, he suggests, is Sudan’s own president, Omar al-Bashir (Bashir). On Monday July 14^th 2008 the prosecutor asked the court to indict Bashir with ten counts of mass crimes, including three for genocide, and to issue a warrant for his arrest. It is the first time that this court, which is celebrating the tenth anniversary of its foundation, has gone after a sitting head of state (Serbia's Slobodan Milosevic and Liberia's Charles Taylor were also indicted when still heads of state, by other international tribunals). It is also the first time that it has sought an indictment for genocide, the gravest of all international crimes.

The fact is that bringing a head of state before an international court, no matter how grave the crimes he is suspected of having committed, does not easily fit an international system built on the principle of state sovereignty, in general application worldwide since 1945. This is a point that is certainly not lost on presidents like Mugabe and Bashir who have offended against humanitarian principles that are held in particular regard by sections of Western public opinion. Sudan’s ruling party has described the case against Bashir as “irresponsible cheap political blackmail” and has threatened more violence if he is indicted. Tanzania’s foreign minister, Bernard Membe, speaking on behalf of the 53-member African Union, wants the court to defer bringing charges “because there is a risk of anarchy in a proportion we have not seen in this continent”.

On the face of it, Bashir richly deserve to be punished for his actions. But, as their supporters do not fail to point out, if that is so, then what of the many other heads of state who are suspected of responsibility for major crimes? Inevitably, the first example that defenders of state sovereignty are likely to raise is that of the US president who invaded Iraq in 2003, probably illegally, and in any event with a public claim of justification that appeared weak even at the time. An enthusiast for international justice may argue that the indictment of Bashir is only a foretaste of things to come, and that in the future all heads of state risk being held responsible for their actions. However, that seems unlikely in the extreme. The authority of any court of justice is directly related to the political forces that sustain it. A really effective system of world criminal justice could operate only in tandem with a system of world government. Realistically, this type of arrangement is not in sight. In any case, such a system would produce its own powerbrokers who would no doubt contrive to place themselves above the law, as powerful people habitually do. In the meantime, the hard fact seems to be that international justice is most likely to be done only when it is politically expedient. In other words, when the person indicted is both politically weak and has few friends as well as being the prima facie author of crimes against humanity.

None of this should be taken to imply that Omar al-Bashir is innocent. It does not mean that he does not deserve to be punished for crimes he appear to have committed. It does, however, mean that his indictment and eventual trial will never be free of political implications. An enthusiast for international justice may accept that this is so, and still wish to see the most egregious violator of human rights duly tried and punished.

Let us compare and contrast the naked crimes that the Bush administration has committed against defenceless countries in the Middle East. After the Bush administration invaded Afghanistan and Iraq under the pretext of the so-called war on terrorism, slaughter, massacre, ethnic cleansing, liquidation, extermination and total annihilation have been going on for years without any end in sight.

Did the ICC prosecutor take a leave from this world when all these acts were being committed? Not long ago, the Israeli military conducted military exercise in what many termed to be a rehearsal in preparation for an attack on Iran. No condemnations came from any of the so-called superpowers on such a provocative exercise. Some weeks later, in order not to be caught unawares, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards test-fired some of their missiles. Immediately, the western megaphones started to issue one press statement after the other on the danger posed by Iranian retaliatory exercise.

Come to think of it, what type of international law will allow Israel to have a nuclear arsenal and deny Iran from having one? Between the two countries, which one among them has committed more acts of genocide and mass murder? How many United Nations resolutions has Iran flouted compared to the illegal state of Israel? The border of Israel keeps on increasing every year because the international community looks the other way when Palestinians’ lands were being forcefully seized. The most painful thing is seeing the fathers of human rights turning away from what is clearly genocide. By pulling the thread holding Palestinians together, they are pulling apart their so-called civilisation in Europe. If the ICC truly does understand the meaning of genocide, they should arrest President Bush and his partner in crime Olmert of Israel.

It is the conflict of interest of the superpowers that keeps the sun scorched soils of Sudan drenched in the river of blood flowing there, and not their internal conflict. If not for the reasonable resistance of African countries, Zimbabwe could have been turned to another battlefield by the western propaganda machines. The African Union need to redirect their attention to investigate the cause of most of African conflicts in order to track down the roles of these imperialists.

Again, none of the above amounts to a solid argument for allowing heads of state to enjoy lifelong immunity for acts committed during their tenure of office. Anyone who cares for justice or human rights must be tempted to wish that guilty people should be punished for offences they have committed. But the deployment of a criminal justice mechanism with particular reference to Africa needs to be seen also in political terms, as evidence of the long term erosion of the sovereignty of states. Military/humanitarian interventions are steadily increasing, whether by the UN, by international alliances, regional groupings, or others. International justice, like military action, can be a legitimate international instrument, but neither is a replacement for politics and diplomacy.

THEY SAY MALAYSIAN MALAYSIA, I HEAR…

What is the true state of a Malaysian Malaysia? What I been hearing lately fills me with dread and disgust. We have Chinese uncles, aunts and brother in law, Indian/Ceylonese grandparents and quite a bit more in our ancestry to qualify me and my wife as a truly ‘rojak’ Malaysian we are so mixed in our ethnicity that the technical definition of race is mere formality.

A true Malaysian Malaysia is a dream I think all Malaysians want to see in their lifetime. But the terrible truth behind the situation today is some of those fighting for a Malaysian Malaysia have an underlying sentiment which is VERY much racially oriented and nobody ever dares meet it head on.

Our leaders are sweating bullets trying to defend the 30% slice of the economic pie for the Malays and nobody ever talks about the 70% dominated by the non-Bumis and this is not counting the so-called Bumi companies with Malay figureheads being controlled by non-Bumis, Ali Baba is still around and not admitting that doesn’t make it go away. A level playing field doesn’t exist and our forefathers who came up with this arrangement should be commended for having the foresight and guts to do something CONCRETE about it instead of simply mouthing off populists sentiments when the reality everywhere else has always been the rich get richer and poor starve. The Russians and even the Americans today are living proof of this, there’s a very nasty distinction between utopia and reality called the human nature survival instincts. Those with economic power will want a social structure that benefits them and they will pay anything to get that. Just as those here who have it will always want more for themselves. Wake up and see the truth, Malays…the ONLY way of true survival is not to depend on others. For every successful Malay, there is still a thousand struggling to eat, lest we forget the poor unfortunates regularly featured on ‘Bersamamu’ and other such programmes. . And Malays who have made it thanks to the system seems to forget this and loudly talk about how we should take away the subsidies/crutches ….hmmmm and the multi million unpaid MARA debts remain unpaid even though they can afford to pay because “hey, ini tanggungjawab kerajaan” never mind that the money is for the next generation of students. It is time for us to help each other instead of depending on the political system because everybody else is getting tired of doing so and our political leaders have sold their soul for power.

The poor should be helped and they should be helped without regard to race or creed. My problem is the best solution our newly elected revolutionary leaders can come up with is to take away Malay rights. How does taking away help from the poor Malays help the poor non-Malays? So they can be poor together? My main point is the fact that this approach is the ‘solution’ du jour for the people fighting for a Malaysian Malaysia show how racially driven they are and in the most malicious way. Wealth is generated and created, one shouldn’t have to rob Peter to pay Paul. At least if we had true thinkers and problem solvers as leaders. This is being proven true everywhere around the world, even when the economy is struggling new millionaires are made every day. Yet the people we have put our faith in can only see competition between the races and any problem is used as an excuse to remove more Malay rights and protection. It is a sickening selectiveness and rather than compete regionally, internationally and globally, they advocate robbing their neighbor to fatten their pockets. My non-Malay genetics hang its sequence in shame. Malaysian Malaysia indeed…

One of the best ways to redress the socio-economic imbalance is education and what do they say? Let’s open up UiTM for the non-Bumis. Last I checked every other IPTA in Malaysia: that is UKM, UM, UPM, UTM, USM, UUM, UNIMAS, UMS, UPSI, IIUM and ALL others except UiTM is open to free competition based on meritocracy (albeit a little quota thrown in to avoid monopoly) and this should be the way for an education/ academic institution. But UiTM is NOT just a university. It was created primarily and solely to help those poor Malays stuck in economic twilight zone thanks to the colonial masters. And we have created many successful individuals at national, regional and even international levels. Go check their webpage and see just EXACTLY what the facts are. Again this automatic perception that anything Malay is mediocre and substandard tells us more about the people thinking it rather than UiTM itself. And despite some successful Malays there are still thousands out there for whom UiTM is their one and only hope to escape poverty. How do I know this? My Indian friend who is a UiTM lecturer and her Chinese colleague verified this, they go all over the country for interviews because some candidates are too poor to even have money to travel for it. There are still Malays who earn less than RM5 a day and the one child out of 8 is their only hope. I would say my friends are truly those who make the change they wish to see. These leaders could learn from them.

Those championing a Malaysian Malaysia talk of competition, yet for every one spot in UiTM there’s 25-200 applicants vying for it depending on the courses. All Bumis, ALL competing to get in. Is that not enough competition? Is that not meritocracy? Yes we need more space in UiTM to accommodate these candidates. Why must competition be against racially divided lines? Seems oxymoronic that they advocate fostering unity by forever bringing up racial differences and highlighting specific issues known to cause discontentment. I see students in schools and others universities STILL being birds of a feather flocking together. Even within the races themselves like tend to be with like…and they are still trotting out that tired old line? When the truth is there are many other ways of fixing the problems, these people keep harping on taking away Malay rights at every opportunity, the only conclusion I see is they themselves are racially oriented with nothing positive on a bigger picture. And the sad thing is many Malaysians whether they are Chinese, Malays or Indians and the DLLs are buying this. A poor neighbor beggars us all and anyone who wants to pursue their agenda at any cost will only lead us down a path of discontent and destruction. We really need to start solving the problems instead of always finding people to blame, committees to form and principles/souls to barter. And the only way political double talk and selling out on the little people will stop is when we ALL TOGETHER start putting the collective good first and egos and agendas last.