PERSATUAN ZZZ

Penubuhan mana-mana persatuan bagi menimbulkan semangat kesukarelawan dan menaburkan bakti adalah perkara yang perlu dialu-alukan. Begitulah juga bila Persatuan ZZZ dilahirkan, perasaan gembira dikalangan ahli-ahli baru terus meluap. Justeru Persatuan ZZZ telah ditubuhkan setelah mencapai Kemerdekaan, di atas niat dan tujuan yang murni. Sebagaimana lumrah pemimpin datang dan pergi seperti dalam mana-mana persatuan. Pada ahli, yang utama ialah mendapat seorang pemimpin yang adil dan bertimbang rasa.

Objektif Persatuan pun dibuat secara mudah untuk dilaksanakan dan dipatuhi, iaitu bagi menjaga serta menjamin kebajikan dan kesejahteraan ahli-ahlinya. Tiada siapa boleh menyatakan objektif tersebut adalah sesuatu yang tidak baik. Ramai ahli yang menjadi komited dengan matlamat sedemikian untuk membolehkan mereka memberi sumbangan. Lagipula ia tidak terlibat dengan kancah politik. Fokusnya adalah untuk semata-mata memberi khidmat bakti secara sukarela. Oleh kerana tujuan murni sebegitu lahirlah kerjasama serta semangat kekitaan dan kemesraan di kalangan ahli.

Saya mengikuti perkembangan persatuan ini secara dekat kerana saya memang suka melihat kerja-kerja sukarela diberikan sokongan konkrit dan bersungguh-sungguh. Saya perhatikan ahli-ahli memberi sumbangan pun bersungguh-sungguh tanpa mengira penat lelah selaras dengan objektif dan aspirasi persatuan. Tidak syak lagi niatnya adalah semata-mata untuk berkhidmat dalam kerja-kerja amal bagi kebaikan rakyat jelata. Rakyat juga menghargai sumbangan persatuan.

Suasana dan hubungan ahli-ahli memang ceria, mesra dan seronok kerana mereka dapat menjalin silaturrahim sesama ahli. Semua aktiviti yang dilaksanakan berjalan dengan baik dan lancar. Namun begitu suasana mula berubah bila salah seorang ahli mempunyai cita-cita untuk menguasai dan memiliki Persatuan ZZZ. Dia pula rela melakukan apa saja bagi mencapai cita-citanya. Selaras dengan niatnya dia merancang dan bertindak untuk menjadi popular termasuk menggunakan wang ringgit. Pelbagai pelan tindakannya telah disusun oleh orang-orangnya supaya dia akan tiba di atas bersama-sama kelompoknya.

Sebenarnya kerana sikap dan caranya bertindak suasana persatuan menjadi renggang dan tegang. Dari awal-awal lagi dia telah menanam perasaan dendam untuk bertindak menyingkir sesiapa juga yang tidak menyokongnya. Dia melakukan apa sahaja untuk memenuhi kehendaknya. Ada masa dia berlagak mesra dan ada masanya angkuh dan sombong. Sememangnya ramai yang tidak tahu bagaimana untuk melayan kerenahnya. Lebih menakjubkan semua orang jauh dan dekat menakutinya. Salah satu perangainya adalah dia menyimpan dendam keatas sesiapa yang dianggap menentangnya.

Bila dia mengambil alih jawatan Presiden tindakannya menjadi lebih terserlah kerana dikatakan dia banyak menzalimi dan menganiayai orang yang tidak berdosa. Dia terang-terang hanya bergaul dan berasa selesa dengan “geng”nya sahaja yang pandai ‘kipas’ dan memujanya. Kawan saya dapat merasakan seolah dia terdiri dalam golongan yang tidak disukai dan dimusuhi oleh Presiden. Dia tidak segan memulau sesiapa yang tidak disukainya. Oleh kerana itu ramai ahli menjadi hilang minat kepada Persatuan. Lantas tidak lagi mahu mengambil bahagian dalam aktiviti persatuan. Sikap Presiden meminggirkan orang yang dibencinya itu tidak berakhir di situ. Kawan saya yang tidak berdosa dan tidak ada cita-cita untuk mengambil alih tampuk pimpinan persatuan pun menjadi mangsanya. Ramai juga yang hairan mengapa walaupun telah menjadi Presiden, masih tidak puas dan terus bermusuhan serta berasa ada ancaman terhadap kedudukannya.

Kata kawan-kawan saya bila dia marah, dendamnya semakin memuncak. Dia sering memberitahu “geng-geng”nya “Tunggulah bila aku berkuasa aku tahulah ajar mereka”. Memang benar bila dia berkuasa dia segera melakukan apa yang dikatakan. Bagi mengelak dari dimalukan dan dihina kawan saya terus memisahkan dirinya dari Persatuan. Walaupun begitu bila berada diluar persekitaran persatuan Presiden cepat memberi persepsi semuanya elok, sedangkan keadaan sebenar disebaliknya dan terus bergolak.

Dari awal-awal lagi Presiden Persatuan, sudah mengatur apa yang hendak dilakukan serta bagaimana beliau hendak menguruskan Persatuan mengikut rentak dan caranya. Ramai yang tidak suka pada kerenahnya tapi semua orang takut dan patuh padanya kerana dialah yang berkuasa. Ahli pun tidak berani menentang. Mereka yang menentang pasti akan berdepan dengan padahnya.

Lebih buruk lagi apabila akhirnya dia menyingkir kawan saya. Berbagai alasan telah digunakan untuk tujuan tersebut. Presiden baru itu setelah mencapai cita-citanya terus melakukan perkara-perkara yang dijanjikan. Diluar mereka bercakap macam-macam hal berkenaannya. Tetapi bila bersamanya terus memuji kerana mereka takut berdepan dengan kemurkaannya kerana mereka tahu kesannya berbuat demikian. Boleh dikatakan Presiden memiliki dwi watak. Pada orang awam dia cuba menunjukkan sifat lembutnya tetapi hakikatnya dia menggunakan kuasa untuk menzalimi orang lain. Pada mulanya saya tidak percaya cerita kawan saya tetapi setelah lebih ramai memberikan cerita yang sama baru saya yakin. Kawan saya menganggap dirinya malang kerana tidak pandai memuji atau mengampu. Saya mengoyangkan kepala. Lebih buruk lagi bila ada dikalangan ahli yang menjadi tukang pengapi dan pemfitnah kawan-kawan sendiri. Presiden pula terus mempercayai tanpa usul periksa.

Saya terus tanya pada ahli dan orang lain yang mempunyai pengalaman, kisah mengenai Presiden, semuanya konsisten dengan satu cerita. Saya teringat balik lagenda dongeng dari Shakespear “Macbeth” dan “Louis Carol” dalam “Alice in Wonderland”. Banyak betul kisah lama rekaan manusia yang mempunyai kesamaan dengan hakikat kehidupan hari ini. Saya hairan mengapa bila sudah berkuasa mesti bengis dan garang. Cita-cita sudah tercapai lebih baik bertindak adil. Tidak merugikan sekiranya berbuat demikian. Tapi dalam hidup ada macam-macam perangai dan tabiat. Kuasa dan pangkat memabukkan. Semoga Allah s.w.t berikan pentunjuk dan hidayah kepada kita semua.

KONFLIK ISRAEL/PALESTIN MASIH SAMAR

Saya merasakan yang dunia masih lagi terpukau dari mengambil apa-apa tindakan terhadap Israel supaya patuh kepada obligasi serta tuntutan masyarakat dan undang-undang antarabangsa. Pelbagai usaha telah dilaksanakan untuk menyedarkan masyarakat dunia yang mangsa sebenar dalam konflik ini adalah rakyat Palestin. Israellah yang telah melakukan jenayah dan pencerobohan terhadap rakyat Palestin. Sabra, Shatilla dan kini Gaza mencerminkan sikap melampau dan zalim rejim Israel terhadap rakyat Palestin. Bantuan kemanusiaan telah disekat dan dicerobohi, seolah apa yang dilakukan oleh Israel adalah perkara yang hak.

Dalam pertemuan Barrack Obama dan Benjamin Netanyahu baru-baru ini, Obama secara jelas dan terbuka memberi sokongan kepada Israel, dengan mengatakan hubungan Israel dan Amerika tidak boleh dipisahkan. Beliau secara terbuka menunjukkan simpati dan kefahaman terhadap program nuklear Israel. Apakah harapan yang tinggal dalam mencari penyelesaian supaya dua buah negara yang berdaulat iaitu Israel dan Palestin terbentuk serta hidup dalam keamanan dan keadaan selamat. Di dalam konflik ini, Israel tidak seharusnya dianggap sebagai mangsa. Mereka telah merampas dan menceroboh serta melakukan pelbagai kekejaman kemanusiaan serta terrorisma terhadap Palestin. Yang mutakhir sekali baru-baru ini mereka telah menyamun dan membunuh sukarelawan dalam kapal Flotilla diperairan antarabangsa semasa kapal tersebut membawa bantuan kemanusiaan untuk penduduk Gaza yang menderita akibat sekatan oleh pihak Israel.

Dunia tidak boleh menerima justifikasi keselamatan yang diberi oleh Israel untuk menghalalkan apa jua tindakan yang tidak berperikemanusiaan selama ini. Mengapa PBB membiarkan Israel melanggar usul-usul PBB serta undang-undang antarabangsa?. Apa yang dituntut rakyat Palestin dan masih tertunggak sejak tahun 1948 hingga hari ini adalah supaya dihentikan terrorisma yang dilakukan oleh Israel terhadap rakyat Palestin dan supaya ditubuhkan negara Palestin yang bebas dari belenggu Israel. Masalahnya pada hari ini dasar Amerika Syarikat terhadap Palestin dan Timur Tengah masih lagi dipengaruhi polisi zaman Perang Dingin. Pendirian dan sikap Amerika Syarikat dan Kesatuan Eropah terhadap konflik Israel/ Palestin perlu berubah. Matlamat untuk menubuhkan sebuah negara Palestin yang aman dan damai masih lagi tergantung dan ianya perlu disegerakan tanpa hanya mengikut kehendak dan rentak Israel.

Apa yang pasti jika disenaraikan setiap perlanggaran Israel, tidak dapat dinafikan ianya adalah satu-satu negara dan kerajaan yang beroperasi mengikut kehendaknya sendiri. Mereka tidak mengendahkan undang-undang dan pandangan antarabangsa. Mereka tidak menghiraukan sesiapa pun kerana mereka ada pelindung yang kuat dan gagah. Tidak salah jika kita merasakan seolah kehilangan nyawa Arab tidak menimbulkan persoalan tetapi sebaliknya nyawa orang Israel dianggap lebih bernilai dan berharga lagi.

Seperti yang dapat dilihat, masyarakat antarabangsa cepat mengambil tindakan keatas Iraq kerana kononnya Iraq memiliki senjata pemusnah. Sehingga sekarang kita tahu tuduhan tersebut tidak dapat dibuktikan. Hari ini dikatakan demokrasi di Iraq telah terlaksana tetapi Iraq sehingga kini bukan lagi negara aman dan selamat. Malahan ia terus dilanda keganasan.

Disebaliknya, Israel sah memiliki senjata nuklear namun negara barat mengunci mulut dan langsung tidak membangkitkan isu tersebut. Lebih istimewa lagi layanan kepada Israel apabila keengganannya menandatangani NPT supaya senjata nuklearnya tidak diperiksa. Namun tiada desakan atau tindakan diambil. Amerika Syarikat hanya meminta dengan secara lembut dan menjustifikasikan kononnya Israel mempunyai kedudukan unik dirantau tersebut. Berbeza pula bagi Iran atau negara-negara lain di Timur Tengah. Walaupun tidak memiliki senjata nuklear yang mengancam keselamatan Israel, mereka akan tetap dihukum dengan berat jika Israel membuat tuduhan bahawa mereka memiliki senjata nuklear.

Peperangan di Timur Tengah pada hari ini sering dimulakan oleh Israel. Walaupun mereka membunuh orang awam kononnya diatas nama keselamatan, Israel tidak perlu khuatir kerana mereka akan tetap dilindungi. Apa yang jelas ialah semenjak ia dilahirkan pada tahun 1948 sehinggalah hari ini Israel terus membelakangkan resolusi PBB, serta terus memperluaskan wilayahnya. Kawasan pendudukan Israel dibangunkan secara haram diatas tanah rakyat Palestin. Pelanggaran yang dilakukan Israel, semuanya serius dan bertentangan dengan undang-undang antarabangsa. Namun demikian tidak ada hukuman setimpal yang dikenakan terhadap Israel.

Kelakuan jenayah yang tidak dihukum ini membolehkan Israel bertindak sesuka hati. Masyarakat antarabangsa mesti bersungguh-sungguh menyokong dan melaksanakan pembentukan sebuah negara Palestin. Walaupun kini sudah dicapai persetujuan yang negara Palestin akan wujud sebelah menyebelah dengan Israel dalam keadaan aman dan selamat, rantau itu terus bergolak kerana Israel berdegil dan ingkar.

Tidaklah menjadi kehendak dunia Arab dan Islam supaya Israel dihapuskan sama sekali tetapi keadilan sejagat mestilah dipraktikkan dalam mengurus persoalan Palestin. Dunia mesti bebas membincangkan dan merumuskan pandangan terhadap pelanggaran Israel yang tidak henti-henti. Adalah tidak adil apabila sesebuah negara atau orang yang mempersoalkan Israel akan dilabelkan sebagai anti semitik.

Persoalannya juga timbul samada benarkah Israel sebuah negara demokratik yang tidak mengamalkan diskriminasi terhadap rakyatnya sendiri?. Sedangkan keadaan sebenarnya mereka menyekat kebebasan bersuara dengan cara cukup teliti dan halus. Apakah alasan yang sah apabila membiarkan Israel menzalimi kanak-kanak dan wanita?. Apakah justifikasi bagi mereka memusnahkan dan meroboh sewenang-wenangnya rumah-rumah orang Palestin dan membina secara haram rumah untuk penempatan rakyat Israel diatas tanah tersebut?. Adalah tidak munasabah apabila Israel dibenarkan memenjara Ahli Parlimen Palestin tanpa bantahan. Hairan juga bila Israel terus dibenarkan melanggar hak asasi manusia tanpa apa-apa tindakan dari PBB. Pembinaan tembok yang diputuskan oleh ICJ sebagai bertentangan dengan undang-undang antarabangsa juga tidak diendahkan oleh Israel.

Macam-macam seminar dan beratus resolusi telah diluluskan terhadap kekejaman Israel, namun ia terus bebas melakukan apa yang dikehendakinya. Walaupun begitu melalui usaha-usaha gigih negara Turki dan NGO-NGO antarabangsa termasuk dari Malaysia masyarakat dunia mula sedar dan mempersoalkan tingkah laku Israel. Saya yakin jika negara-negara Arab bersepakat tentu kedudukan rakyat Palestin akan dapat diubah. Mengapa dunia Arab tidak boleh memainkan peranan sepertimana Malaysia untuk memaksa Amerika Syarikat dan Kesatuan Eropah bertindak secara seimbang dan adil?.

RESPONSE TO MP WATCH : EYE ON PARLIAMENT PROJECT BY THE NUT GRAPH SUPPORTED BY KONRAD ADENAUER STIFTUNG

Would you support the abolition/review of the Internal Security Act (ISA), in particular the provision that allows for detention without trial? Why or why not?

Although many have argued that the ISA has outlived its purpose and should thus be abolished in its entirety, it is my view that the ISA should not be abolished. Instead, it should be cautiously reviewed without undermining the importance of national security.

The ISA is still a necessary tool to curb extremism, terrorism and other threats to national security. What should be done is to review the ISA to ensure that its implementation and enforcement are in tandem with current development, and not in conflict with the liberalisation process which is taking shape within our country. In short, a balance must be struck between the need to protect and preserve human rights and the need to ensure that national security is not compromised. This exercise, however, is easier said than done. That is why the ISA must be reviewed cautiously.

In my opinion, the review should focus on the due process of law right from the moment a person is detained under the ISA. The right to legal representation, for example, should not be denied arbitrarily. The detainee should be given the right to legal counsel from the beginning of his [or her] detention, unless there is a cogent and compelling reason in not allowing him [or her] the right to legal access and representation.

The period of initial detention by the police should also be made shorter and subject to judicial review, which will mean the home minister’s power (as the minister in charge of the ISA) will also be subject to the due process of law.

These are, of course, just examples of making the whole process more transparent and open, to correct the misconception of political interference or undue executive interference in the ISA’s usage and implementation.

Currently, the prevailing perception is that detention under the ISA is politically motivated. With respect, I disagree. It should be pointed out that even within the existing framework, the home minister acts on the advice of the police and the ministry’s legal adviser. Based on the facts and advice presented to him [or her], he [or she] will make [a] decision. The home minister does not make decisions at his [or her] own whim and fancy under the ISA. There are procedures to be followed, and they must be complied with.

No one is above the law. But there is this new feeling, somehow, that politicians are above the law. If politicians act in a way that is considered a threat to national security, they are equally subjected to the same law.

Do you think Malaysia should be a secular or an Islamic state? Why?

In terms of the constitutional framework, we have two parallel systems governing Muslims and non-Muslims. However, Islamic law is only applicable to Muslims in respect of personal laws affecting, for example, marriage, and the distribution of assets after death. In this context, Malaysia is not a theocratic state governed purely under syariah law, except in specific matters affecting Muslims.

It must be pointed out that Muslims are also subject to the country’s civil and criminal laws. It is not a typical secular state either, as understood by the West, as the Federal Constitution guarantees Islam’s position as the official religion.

Personally, I would describe Malaysia as an Islamic country, not in the theocratic sense, but from the constitutional and historical point of view. [This is because] the majority of the population are Muslims, and in the Federal Constitution, Islam is the official religion.

How do you define your role as an elected MP? Does Parliament provide you with the necessary infrastructure and support to fulfill your role?

As an elected representative, you must first represent the interest of your constituency, and in the wider context, the whole electorate. As members of the legislature, elected representatives must look at their roles holistically. We are responsible for making laws for the whole nation, and thus are obliged to ensure, to the best of our abilities, that they must be just, fair and for the betterment of the nation as a whole.

In order to be an effective MP in representing the people’s interests, we must strive to improve the facilities and infrastructure provided to MPs. We should, for example, consider employing staffers like in the UK and the US to assist the MPs in discharging their duties effectively. This will allow us to have quality debates and discussions.

Would you support a Freedom of Information Act? Why or why not?

I do not think there is an obstacle or hindrance to information. What people want now is to have access to more information.

Personally, I have no objection to a Freedom of Information Act, but we must know and study carefully the subject matters that are intended to be included in this proposed act. There should be balance between the state’s right to maintain confidentiality and security, and citizens’ right to information.

However, I agree that we do need more transparency and accountability in some areas, especially when dealing with matters of public interest within the government or its agencies. This is a developmental process in a participative democracy all over the world. But whatever we want to do, we must view it from our own country’s perspective.

Malaysia’s democratic processes and institutions have evolved. I can say today there appears to be more freedom than before. Notwithstanding that, one cannot simply import an alien culture of democracy into our country. Democracy is unique and has to be nurtured based on our customs and traditions.

If there was one thing you could do to strengthen parliamentary democracy in Malaysia, what would it be?

Parliamentary democracy is a system of representative government in which the dominant party in the legislature forms a government. This party system within the concept of parliamentary democracy is common all over the world. Admittedly, sometimes, this party system becomes a hindrance or obstacle for an MP to really speak his or her mind as he or she is subjected to party ruling and discipline. It is quite a universal practice as well as a problem when you have a party system.

Personally, I am of the view that MPs should be allowed, without affecting or compromising their party loyalty, to speak their mind in a constructive manner. I would like to see a more liberal attitude for MPs to speak their minds freely, especially on matters of public interest. MPs should not be too partisan in all cases. They should speak objectively and constructively for the country’s good and well-being, rather than to score points and make political gains or mileage. By doing this, the executive can respond more positively.

Just because you are a member of the opposition, you must not oppose for the sake of opposing. I would like to see less politicisation when it comes to matters of public interest.

Do you believe in separation of powers between the executive, Parliament and judiciary? Why or why not?

Our system is based on the UK’s Westminster model. In any parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, as practised in Malaysia and the UK, the doctrine of separation of powers is sacrosanct, allowing checks and balances to function effectively.

However, due to the party system, where the executives are also MPs from the same party, there appears to be some obstacles to act freely in all cases. In short, there can be some grey [area] or a thin line of division between the two.

Judicial independence is of prime importance. It must not only be independent, but be seen as independent. Court decisions must be arrived at purely on the basis of law and judicial reasoning, and there must not be any interference or pressure from the executive, opposition or other quarters.

There have been incidents from time to time when the government or the executive has been accused of interfering with the separation of powers. This is a mere perception brought about by certain events which were manipulated by cunning politicians to gain political mileage. However, whether we like it or not, this has affected public confidence in the judiciary’s independence.

Be that as it may, the separation of powers must be maintained and preserved. While the executive must understand its role, the opposition too must curb their lust to politicise court cases for the sake of political gain. This will go a long way towards restoring public confidence in the judiciary as well as in the principle of separation of powers.

‘Keynote Address’ “World War II & the Rise of Multilateralism” At the International Conference on WW2

By Honorable Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Syed Hamid Albar

Member of Parliament Malaysia
KL Convention Centre , 13 May 2010 (Thursday) @ 10.30 am

Mr. Chairman, Excellencies

Distinguished Delegates, Ladies and Gentlemen

1. Let me begin by thanking the organizers for inviting me to address the conference on World War II and the Rise of Multilateralism. I also like to congratulate you for holding a conference on a subject of great importance. To look at the past and to chart our future and avoid pitfalls. I am sure it is not the intention of the organizers simply to remind us on the atrocities but more on the lessons to be learned. I realize though that this is a subject, we can without any difficulty find voluminous materials written by historians, academics and war experts.

2. I was born in 1944, close to the end of the war and when the Japanese were about to surrender. This year marks the 65th anniversary of the end of the WW II. Though 65 years divide us from the date of the final victory over the aggressors who unleashed the most violent and murderous confrontation mankind ever saw, the lessons of the WW II must not be forgotten. The atrocities committed, the deprivation and violation of human rights and the acts of criminality were just ugly and downright frightening and despicable. Nonetheless it has been contended by some that the only way to stop a war against the aggressors is to declare another war on the basis that it is necessary to achieve peace. This is the paradox and irony of wars. Right or wrong is not an issue.


3. The far reaching effects and devastation of WW II are before us to see even to this day and age. We can view the causes of war from multifarious perspectives, be it political, philosophical, moral or social. There are those who would justify war by saying it’s inevitable as it is inherent in the culture of mankind. There are those who would attribute the causes of war to greed for power, the desire to conquer and expand territorial boundaries or regain lost territories. Personally whatever the reason may be I am just simply appalled by the kind of atrocities committed in the conduct of war. In my opinion, war should not be used as a tool of resolving differences and conflicts although admittedly this is easier said than done.

4. What is obvious, WW II brought about changes that resulted in inevitable transformation. Statistics have shown us the many lives lost as a result of this global military conflict lasting from 1939-1945. Even though no conclusive figure can be obtained on the actual number of casualties because many deaths were not recorded, it is believed that about 60 million people died, comprising of 20 million soldiers and 40 million civilians. The Soviet Union suffered the most, with 27 million deaths, almost half of all the number of casualties of WW II. The largest number of civilian deaths in a single city was 1.2 million citizens in The Siege of Leningrad. The total deaths, approximately 85% on the Allied side (mostly Soviet and Chinese) and 15% on the Axis side. In Nazi concentration camps alone, it is estimated 12 million people were killed.

5. It cannot be denied that many of the deaths were acts of genocide and other war crimes, committed by German and Japanese forces. The most notorious of German atrocities was the ‘Holocaust’ and the ‘Japanese Nanking Massacre’, where Chinese civilians were raped and murdered. This part of our human history can now be visibly viewed on films and documentaries. All of us I am sure would find it difficult to fathom the absence of compassion in the commission of the most horrendous crimes by human being upon another human being.

6. As an outcome of the war new dynamics emerged. European boundaries were redrawn, the United Kingdom became a welfare state, and the communist took over China and Eastern Europe. Vietnam became two states of North and South Vietnam. WW II also caused the beginning of many multilateral organizations including the United Nations (UN), The World Bank, GATT and later the World Trade Organization (WTO) and The International Monetary Fund (IMF). It also brought technological changes such as nuclear fission, the electronic computer and jet engine, to name but a few.

7. At the political level, the world turned from a multi polar world to a bipolar one, dominated by the US and Soviet Union, the superpowers. With the end of the WW II and the failure of the League of Nations to prevent the war, a new multilateral institution, the UN was formed in 1945. It was also the UN that was responsible for the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 as an answer to the Holocaust and following the British undertaking under the Balfour Declaration of 1917.



8. After her defeat, Germany was partitioned into 4 zones of occupation. The American, British and French zones which were later grouped as West Germany and The Soviet zone became East Germany. Austria became a separate state from Germany, originally divided into four zones, which later was reunited as the Republic of Austria. After the Korean war, Korea was divided into two – North and South Korea. The war also created continental, national and local phenomena.

9. The UN Charter clearly spells out interstate relations and the rights and obligations of its members. The Preamble to The Charter outlines the reason for its formation. The UN is a byproduct of the failure of the League of Nations. The participation and support of the world superpowers namely the US and Soviet Union made it possible for the new UN not to face the quagmire of its predecessor, the League of Nation and gave it necessary clout and international power. Consequently this body would play a more active role than the League of Nations in world affairs, including fighting diseases and providing humanitarian aid to nations that need assistance badly. It was able during the Cold War to play an intermediary role at the diplomatic level between both sides.

10. One of the most prominent aftermaths of WW II was the adverse impact on the reputation of the imperial nations as they were no longer considered invincible. Indeed the war was an eye opener and led to growing sense of nationalism and patriotism amongst its citizens. It also marked the end of United Kingdom as a global superpower and the emergence of a new and dominant power namely the United States and the Soviet Union. The relationship between the two victors worsened and the military lines of demarcation became de-facto the new countries boundaries. This was the beginning of the Cold War and two blocs namely NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

11. When UN was established, it incorporated in its Charter provisions to ensure the shortcomings of the League of Nations are not repeated to avoid another world war. Due to this, UN was able to play an active and proactive role to prevent war as well sustain peace and stability globally. However, although the UN was able to prevent the occurrence of a third world war, it has failed to prevent and act decisively in preventing military conflicts within state inter and intra states. This multilateral vehicle may slow the process of open military conflict but it cannot constitute a guarantee for sustaining a lasting peace. This is because there is always that unequal relationship between states and the absence of a level playing field.

12. Questions are often asked, whether the multilateral system can establish an international order that would be just and equitable to all? There have been some suggestions that the multilateral system has outlived its usefulness as a mechanism to achieve global peace and security. The truth is even if there are setbacks the international community has not found a credible substitute to replace the UN. Under the circumstances, until a better, effective and efficient system is found, members have to manage and cope under the constellation of this system. It is for this reason I consider it absolutely necessary to be a member of a regional or sub-regional grouping in order to have a sense of safety and protection.

13. Many of us may think that with the appearance of a unipolar world and the absence of countervailing force this further emphasizes the imbalance in the current world order. The US started the war in Iraq unilaterally. Countries of the south did not like the stranglehold of the IMF economically. GATT (subsequently replaced by the WTO) a creation of multilateralism, is supposed to bring a more conducive and mutually beneficial environment for trade between states. Has it then been able to do so? Yes but it has benefited the economically strong and powerful nations more than the developing nations of the south.

14. The reality is that all specialized agencies of the UN are governed by multilateralism. Philippe Moreau Defarges in his article on “Multilateralism and the End of History” interalia said, “Multilateralism is the application of democratic principles to international relations”. What type of democracy are we intending to establish? Is it the desire to create homogeneity or to empower universal diversities?

15. The popular subject debated widely amongst politicians analysts and diplomats for years was their concern on the ability of the multilateral system to be sustained when its credibility and integrity has been badly undermined by unilateral actions. Some even say UN might as well be construed as dead but no solution was offered in lieu of it. However, many still consider it as a working and useful institution, that allowed the presence of multilateral diplomacy to augment bilateral diplomacy. The UN has undertaken reformed, but not to the extent that member states desire in order to reflect the current situation. Multilateralism is meant to function for the good and well being of the committee of nations.

16. Understanding multilateralism as practiced today is a very challenging task in view of the changing global geopolitical landscape of the world. For some of us we may have nostalgic feeling about the ‘good old days’. Be that as it may, for sure we cannot bring it back. Even the bipolar world a product of the confrontation era of the Cold War, has made the poor nations poorer. The multilateral system itself has gone through tremendous transformation since the end of WW II. What is clear is that the multilateral system is part and parcel of the UN system. The demand for the UN to reform by member states including Malaysia has been going on for more than two decades so that it is consistent with the dictates and requirements of today. Furthermore multilateralism itself is being viewed and interpreted especially by the dominant powers to suit their particular circumstances and situations to support legitimacy of their actions or inactions. There are about 5000 international treaties and conventions signed by states. New non-state actors and the NGO’s are playing more conspicuous roles.

17. During the Cold war period UN was not able to play an effective role as the P5 members were at odds with each other. Nevertheless with the end of the Cold War, international relations has somewhat improved but the issues of Middle East conflict, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan remained unresolved. However new trends have surfaced where internal affairs have been internationalized under the pretext of championing the cause of democracy and human rights. Furthermore Chapter VII of UN Charter has been used and abused. Another phenomenon confronting the global community is on the issues of failed/collapsed states issues.

18. The WW II remained a German-Polish affair until September 3, 1939 when Britain and France, bound to Poland by military pacts, declared war on Nazi Germany, pulling their then powerful empires into the war. In Russia, meanwhile, what is known as the “Great Patriotic War” started on June 22,1941.

19. For West European, it remained the so called “Phoney War” until 1940. That year, Nazis swept through Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland and attacked Britain from the air, and Germany’s ally Fascist Italy entered the war. The United States found itself at war on December 7,1941 with the Japanese bombing of the US Navy’s base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.

20. In the meantime American forces in the Pacific continued to press back the Japanese perimeter and in the middle of June they started an offensive against the Mariana and Palau Islands scoring a decisive victory against Japanese forces in the Philippine Sea within a few days. These defeats led to the resignation of the Japanese prime minister Tojo and provided the United States with air bases to launch intensive heavy bomber attacks on the Japanese home Islands. In late October the US forces invaded the Filipino island of Leyte and soon after Allied naval forces scored another large victory during the Battle of Leyte Gulf – one of the largest naval battles in history.

21. The most bloody conflict in the world history ended with the Germany’s crushing defeat in May 1945 and the Japanese capitulation in September 1945.

22. The unconditional surrender of the German forces in Europe and the defeat of the so called “thousand Years” Third Reich was achieved due to the close cooperation between the Allies – USSR, Great Britain and the USA whose leaders wisely preferred to put aside differences in opinions and approaches while consolidating their forces to fight the common enemy. This noble principle carried out by the leaders is outside the timeframe and should be followed by the Great Power even today and especially in the face of challenges we encounter in our unstable modern world.

23. Despite certain notorious attempts to rewrite history and classify aggressors as victims of circumstances, there’s one forcible argument that defeats decisively all the faint effort of those not knowing their roots – the judgement of the Nuremberg trial. No trial in the history of the humankind provides a better basis for understanding the real nature and causes of evil and brutality than do the Nuremberg trials that took place in the defeated Germany from 1945 to 1949.

24. On August 6, 1945 the representatives of the Allies signed the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, establishing the law and procedures that would govern the Nuremberg trials. After numerous witnesses and hundreds of exhibits that had been committed in Europe declaring the war: Unfortunately several criminals escaped trial and punishment by committing suicide or fleeing abroad. But the majority that had been captured by the Allies were tried and got the just retribution they deserved.

25. In over half a century the images and testimonies that came out of Nuremberg court rooms have not lost their capacity to shock. The trials also helped expose many defendants for the criminals they were, thus denying them a martyrdom in the eyes of the public that they might otherwise have achieved.

26. It is the moral duty of all nations to cherish the memory of the enduring importance of the victory over Nazism, Fascism and militarism and the genuine Allied effort that took place over the dramatic events in the world history. And it is the moral duty as well to keep firm to the rulings of the Nuremberg Trial that condemned war criminals who started the bloodiest war in the world history.

27. The most significant development of WW II for Asia was that local leaders were able to advance the cause of nationalism in the region, leading the way towards independence. This may have been the most positive impact of the WW II in this part of the world.

28. The war also resulted in the re-configuration of the world’s superpowers. The British Empire for instance, gave way to American domination in all parts of the world except for the communist bloc, which became a force to be reckoned with, led by Russia and China. The end of war also witnessed the emergence of the arms race spearheaded by the United States. Japan joined the rest of Western Europe and United States in becoming economically powerful. A new international political equation has surfaced, resulting in the emergence of conflicting ideologies and animosities which could once again set the world on the war path.

29. In a multipolar world there are many centres of power to ensure checks and balances that in turn prevent the dominance of any one single nation or group of nations over the rest of the world. This phenomenon of multipolarity and the balance of power that it ensures, need to be clarified and deliberated in depth, for clearer understanding and awareness of both current as well as future world trends to emerge.

30. The world seems not to have learned from history since we are still witnessing violation of sovereignty, oppression of the human rights, military invasions and operation, coup d’etat and other manifests of intolerance, injustice and brutality. Every simmering conflict could start a fire of another devastating war as in the Middle East, Afghanistan and other hotspots. This can be another beginning of a possible clash of interests of existing and emerging superpowers. This time the war may be fought between states and non state actors.

31. I hope that this international conference will do its best in helping to impart the culture of peace, trust, understanding and goodwill, WW II should have taught us to resolve whatever conflicts peacefully and diplomatically and surely not through the power of all-devouring weaponry. It’s the main aim of all of us to create an awareness that war is not the answer or the resolution for conflict or differences. Let there not be a World War III.



32. I am confident the conference will hence focus on the reasons that lead to the war and not to rewrite the history of the Second World War. There is a necessity to revisit the role of nations. The world paid a heavy price for the war.

33. Victor or victim, war is a great waste to both sides. As we are all aware war kills innocent lives, young and old, which of course a huge loss of human resources. Wars also destroy farmlands, towns, cities and irreplaceable ancient and historical sites were not spared.

34. As for the survivors of war, the bitterness, emptiness, disillusionment, hate and rage will have to be endured with each passing day.

35. Someone once wrote, “Though nothing can bring back, the hour of splendor in the grass, glory in the flowers, we may grieve not, rather find strength in what remains behind”.

36. In concluding my speech I would like to thank the organizers of this conference – World Future Online Islamic portal and its partners for inviting me to this event.

ASEAN LOGICS KUALA LUMPUR 2010

AT INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA
29 APRIL 2010
BY HONORABLE TAN SRI SYED HAMID ALBAR.

I am pleased to be here with you this afternoon to share my thoughts on ASEAN.

As ASEAN is now coming to its 47th year, I believe it can be an example to other sub regional organisation in Asia. The issue of integration is crucial to ASEAN’s future development. The emergence of China and India as market and export driven economies will obviously be a core element in Asia’s economic growth and development. Can than ASEAN response to this new phenomena and development?

In term of its geopolitical position ASEAN can be a “regional hub” for a wider economic cooperation and integration within the context of East Asia and subsequently in the wider context of Asia.

Most of 10 ASEAN member states economies individually are small but as a group with a population of over 500milion people it will be a sizeable and economically powerful region. It is through integration that they can be considered as equal partner to other larger, more powerful economies of China, India, Japan and Korea.

The coming into force of the ASEAN Charter is one of the positive developments in ASEAN to realise integration. It was not easy but it was signed in Nov 2007. Formerly ASEAN’s consensus building and informal approach has been the cornerstone of ASEAN decision making process. Through evolution ASEAN moves its institutional framework to a rule based organisation.

I believe with the Charter, ASEAN will continue to take pragmatic steps, recognising national peculiarities and priorities especially in dealing with the question of the gap between ASEAN 6 and the newer members that are less developed. Definitely narrowing the development gap within ASEAN would be the greatest challenge for ASEAN. As ASEAN moves towards an economic community by 2015, the private sector has to be playing significant role in this process. For regional cooperation and integration to be successful ASEAN needs to position itself in developing cross border infrastructure, trade and investment, money and finance.

When ASEAN was formed on August 8, 1967, I was still studying law at The Inns of Court. I did not know about ASEAN, though I knew of Malaysia’s confrontation with Indonesia.

Malaysia’s emphasized in its foreign policy, the importance of regional cooperation. Thus ASEAN remains the cornerstone of Malaysia’s policy. There are challenges that the country has to face in the dynamics of international relations. The question is what can Malaysia achieve in promoting and fostering ASEAN cooperation?

The short answer to this, ASEAN member states is strengthened by the numbers, which will allow them to enjoy economic growth and development in the environment of regional peace and stability. I will not deny, as a former Foreign Minister, that peace and prosperity in ASEAN has to a large measure is achieved due to forging trust and confidence amongst its members.

This was not an easy task bearing in mind that at that time Indonesia had declared confrontation against Malaysia and Singapore and the world was divided by the Cold War. Further more diplomatic relations between Indonesia and Malaysia had been severed. Philippines had a claim on Sabah and Indochina on the other side was at war with US.

With that backdrop many outside observers expect ASEAN to falter and not being able to move forward. Nevertheless ASEAN has proved them wrong. They can look back with pride that ASEAN 5 now has become ASEAN 10 which completes all the countries in South East Asia. Its greatest contribution is to maintain peace and stability. The step by step approach in arriving at decision had brought about a successful confidence building measure process to enable ASEAN to become a recognised and respected organisation internationally. They started as a loose association without a legal personality. Today it has become a ruled based organisation with a legal personality with the adoption of the Charter. Two things will happen with the Charter it is expected integration will be exhilarated and with this ASEAN could become the driving force for East Asian integration.

What ASEAN and East Asia recognised is the diversity of our continent in term of culture, religion, language, politics and levels of development. Even in the area of trade, investment and economic cooperation, the traditional partners of Asian countries have always been the Americas and Europe. As this region is deepening their integration, there is an imperative need for ASEAN to integrate and also work for an East Asian integration.

ASEAN has to transform to the changing realities including its decision making process. The process based on consultation and consensus while it makes good sense need to be more flexible for attaining cohesiveness and effectiveness. With the Charter, many expect ASEAN to have a mechanism to enforce its members commitments for the wider regional interest.



Since Malaysia’s independence, the leaders had worked hard to develop the economy, society and governance. This is done with a view to improving the standards, quality of lives of the people to uphold governance, democracy and the rule of law. This will enable the citizens to exercise their rights and responsibilities for peace and stability.

The strength of Malaysia’s foreign policy is its ability to conduct its foreign policies on the basis of its conviction of what is right and wrong. On this premise Malaysia advocated a world community based on justice, shared wealth, just and fair relationship for big and small nations alike.


In August 1967, the Bangkok Declaration was signed which stated in clear and defined terms what ASEAN’s aims and objectives are. This enables ASEAN to bring together the original five South East Asian nations to form ASEAN and finally complete the geographical mix with all ten South East Asian nations becoming members of ASEAN. They had gone through enmity and confrontations but the pack of resolving conflicts through dialogues and diplomacy will continue. The Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in 1976 which have now been an acceded to by other dialogue partners. The step by step consensus building process kept the ASEAN nations together.

They practice the policy of non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, much to the dissatisfaction and sometimes strong criticisms of our European and Western dialogue partners. The cool headed ways of handling issues had enabled them to build trust, goodwill and understanding amongst them.

ASEAN is strengthened by being together. The big and small nations in ASEAN feel they could face the external challenges better as a group rather than as an individual or single country. It was by no means an easy process. There were times that we felt frustrated because of lack of unity and cohesion in the international arena, as each ASEAN country keep their alignments and vested interest with some big powers outside the region, particularly US and Europe. It does complicate ASEAN in taking a common position on many multilateral issues. ASEAN is also being inundated by overlapping claims at the bilateral and intra ASEAN level. However our bilateral differences do not interfere with our regional cooperation. This has enabled ASEAN to keep the bind of ASEAN sustainable. However some of ASEAN long standing approach in non-interference had undergone tremendous change from the time of its inception. The change brought about by globalisation which requires ASEAN to act pragmatically, so that it would be in line with the current development and thinking at the international front.

I remember at some of our meetings with our dialogue partners, such as the ASEAN Regional Forum we faced bumpy rides due to the tendency of the Europeans to lecture us on how and what we should do on democracy, human rights, labour or free trade. Perceptions and values on how we should conduct international relations and the type of political or economic models became contentious. Amongst ASEAN countries Malaysia had always taken a more direct and vocal stance in defending the ASEAN position. Nonetheless their relationships with their Western dialogue partners mature and they learn to understand ASEAN better. The air of informality to achieve a formal decision had served ASEAN well.

Their partners learn to understand and accept their diversities. This has enabled them to cooperate and work with ASEAN member states better and more efficiently, bringing mutual benefits to both sides.



It’s interesting to read the experiences of those involved in ASEAN at the initial stage of its formation. The friendly and warm relationship was the greatest achievement of ASEAN diplomacy, which culminated in an agreement under a very informal setting. This system of working on the basis of consultation and consensus continues to this day, though the format and the approach have changed. By this way ASEAN became a respected and acknowledged as a successful organisation. Though some member states faced problems with the UN, EU and the USA or even experiencing internal strife it does not stop the Dialogue partners from cooperation at the region wide. By putting ASEAN’s collective resources together it will be able to bring prosperity to all.

It was the taking of small steps on a voluntary basis and informal arrangements that ASEAN finally become an institutionalised rule based legal personality with its own Charter, which was thought not possible before this. Today ASEAN is moving confidently to be an integrated society based on the three pillars outlined in the Bali Concord II document. The ASEAN Economic Community and the ASEAN Socio-Cultural community that was unimaginable before has now become a reality. The inculcation of the feelings of ASEAN-ness is growing and their intention to establish an economic community by 2015 instead of 2020 is now achievable. An integrated ASEAN playing a greater role in the international arena is now realisable. It can thus become a driving force for East ASEAN Integration. In the years to come I believe ASEAN may even adopt a common position on many international issues which affect justice under the multilateral system.

Malaysia I am sure like to see a stable environment in the region and in this regard it will continue to nurture interstate relations with other countries, especially with its neighbours. Malaysia has placed importance to regional cooperation and I am sure it will continue to dominate Malaysia’s foreign policy in the years ahead. No doubt there can be irritants but a good bilateral relation continues to be fostered even with leadership changes within Malaysia or ASEAN member states. New endeavours are being undertaken to ensure that short-term difficulties would not interfere with the long-term interest.

Eventhough there are still outstanding issues between Malaysia and Singapore for example, other areas of cooperation are pursued to bring mutual benefits. With Indonesia recently there have been quite intense emotional issues on overlapping claims and Indonesian workers, even on ownership of same culture heritage, they do not affect the overall bilateral relation. Though in terms of substance these issues may be seen as trivial but with media sensationalism Malaysian and Indonesian leaders had to work closely together to cool down temperatures. In other words dialogue and diplomacy will continue to play a pivotal role in ASEAN. The leadership in ASEAN has adapted to the dynamic challenges within and outside the region. So long as Malaysia takes a pragmatic, consistent and principled foreign policy stance, it will gain respect and friendship beyond the size of its country.

In this respect let me underscore the vital importance which Malaysia attaches to good working relations with ASEAN countries. Generally Malaysia takes a more open and direct position in a number of regional and international issues. Its participation has been active and engaging since it is more willing to speak its minds.

ASEAN dialogue partners consist of all the big and small powers in Asia, Asia Pacific and Europe. Sometimes Malaysia does take very unpopular and different positions from other ASEAN members and the dialogue partners. However this should not be taken to mean Malaysia is anti anyone. It is just that Malaysia maintained that friends should be able to speak freely, even if it meant they would disagree on certain issues. I believe Malaysia will continue to exercise independence in the conduct of international relations at the bilateral and multilateral levels based on its national and strategic interests. However the voice and emphasis would be more subtle.

I see there is a new approach and emphasis in our foreign policy stance. Notwithstanding any differences bilateral relations and cooperation will definitely expand in areas such as trade, investment, education and human resources development. ASEAN remains relevant as it continues to evolve into an ASEAN community. With its integration there will be clearer and broader cooperation crossing all areas for economic development and growth, though not exactly in the mould of EU. ASEAN can be easily seen promoting cooperation amongst member states to realise its objective of a truly integrated ASEAN, which would become a constructive driving force as they move towards East Asian Integration and community.

The efforts to focus on enhancing ASEAN as a grouping and bridging the technological and development gap will ensure the goals of an integrated ASEAN be achieved. There is no doubt in my mind that with the Charter and the various initiatives undertaken amongst member states and also its dialogue partners, the vision of an integration and establishment of an ASEAN community will be realised.

For Malaysia notwithstanding the difficulties, ASEAN has to learn to work together regionally. ASEAN recognises that the way forward in addressing the new challenges, brought about by globalisation and the experiences of the financial crisis of 1997 is to forge closer and deeper integration. The ‘we feeling’ is growing amongst the ASEAN citizens as ASEAN develops its common values. Towards this end more and more harmonisation of ASEAN standards and practices, will enable us to genuinely look at ourselves as ASEAN citizens. ASEAN in my view has successfully made a paradigm shift. This can be noticed though the creation of ASEAN human rights body as required by the Charter and a more constructive and active role of its civil society.

While enhancing its ties with the rest of the world Bali Concord II has drawn a road map for ASEAN integration to bring the vision into a reality. The fact that it has moved from a policy regime to a legal regime will enable ASEAN to take new initiatives and create new mechanisms to give meaning to the aims and objectives of the Charter. There been institutional framework and processes implemented, which will enhance the role of the Secretary General and strengthen the functions of the ASEAN Secretariat.

In conclusion, economic cooperation and integration for ASEAN in the Asian landscape should and will be pragmatic and in step with emerging opportunities. Given the region’s diversity, size, and varying stages of economic development, the path toward economic integration will be one that naturally builds on the region’s developing synergies in a multi-track, multi-speed, market-friendly way-one in which timetables are kept and, under the new Charter, obligations fulfilled. Proceeding in this manner will ensure that opportunities to benefit from the region’s growth are shared more widely among its people.

KRISIS YANG TIDAK SELESAI

Selaku bekas Menteri Luar banyak perkara diperingkat antarabangsa menyentuh perasaan serta minda saya. Terutamanya bila ia melibatkan kegagalan mengamalkan prinsip keadilan dalam mencari penyelesaian masalah kemanusiaan di peringkat rantau atau antarabangsa. Mithalnya konflik di Kashmir, yang tidak langsung diberi perhatian oleh masyarakat antabangsa. Persoalan keadilan antarabangsa, ketidakseimbangan hubungan dan ketidakupayaan PBB menyelesaikan masalah dunia serta seringkali lumpuh dan tidak bermaya untuk melindungi kepentingan masyarakat yang berhadapan dengan konflik.

Diantara isu-isu utama yang masih tertunggak merangkumi soal penubuhan negara Palestin, peperangan di Iraq dan Afghanistan. Saya tidak nafikan yang pelbagai alasan boleh diberikan mengapa sesuatu perkara berlaku atau tidak berlaku. Pada masa ini ada kecenderungan ketara untuk menjustifikasikan tindakan dengan alasan ancaman terrorisma/keganasan ataupun kehadiran pelanggaran terhadap undang-undang kemanusiaan secara langsung ataupun tidak langsung. Namun demikian pelaksanaan tindakan tidak berteraskan prinsip keadilan dan keseimbangan.

Pada hari ini apa yang jelas ialah dunia yang dilandaskan dengan prinsip “yang kuat itu benar”, justru yang lemah menjadi mangsa negara besar ataupun kuasa besar. Jika dilihat dari perspektif sejarah Timur Tengah sendiri akan disedari bahawa wilayah-wilayah negara dirantau tersebut telah dimuktamadkan diantara kepentingan Inggeris, Perancis, dan Rusia, mengikut percaturan politik mereka. Negara-negara baru dan kawasan pengaruh masing-masing diwujudkan semata-mata untuk kepentingan tersebut.

PALESTIN/ISRAEL

Konflik Palestin/Israel tercetus bermula kerana Israel dilahirkan oleh ‘Balfour Declaration’ pada 2 November 1917 sewaktu beliau memegang jawatan Setiausaha Luar Negeri Britain. Pada 29 November 1947 Perhimpunan Agong PBB telah mengesahkan Pelan UNSCOP untuk menubuhkan negara Israel serta menjadikan Bandar Baitulmaqdis dibawah pentadbiran langsung PBB. Dengan keputusan tersebut David Ben-Gurion telah mengisytiharkan pembentukan negara Israel pada 14 Mei 1948 (selepas Britain berundur dari Palestin). PBB membahagikan Palestin kepada dua negara, iaitu Israel dan Palestin tetapi dengan tidak merumuskan secara muktamad penubuhan negara Palestin. Pembentukan negara Israel telah mengundang bantahan dari penduduk Palestin. Rakyat Palestin mengisytiharkan tarikh 15 Mei 1948 (iaitu tarikh lahirnya Israel) sebagai Hari Hitam (Yawm al-Nakba).

Sehingga dewasa ini walaupun masalah penubuhan Palestin telah sepatutnya diselesaikan selaras dengan usul-usul Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu, namun Palestin tidak terbentuk tetapi disebaliknya Israel terus memperluaskan wilayah berteraskan penaklukan melalui peperangan dan mengambil wilayah-wilayah tersebut berlandaskan rasional keselamatan negaranya. Sudah pasti peperangan juga tidak mampu mengakhirkan konflik kerana Israel adalah kuasa ketenteraan terkuat di Timur Tengah yang didokong oleh Amerika Syarikat dan kuasa besar lain.

Dunia senyap seribu bahasa tidak membincangkan yang Israel adalah kuasa nuklear yang tidak dipantau oleh Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu atau organisasi dunia yang lain. Banyak anjakan bagi mencapai penyelesaian dan kompromi telah dibuat oleh masyarakat dunia khususnya dikalangan negara-negara Arab dan Islam tetapi Israel tetap tidak berganjak dari pendiriannya. Jika diimbas kembali sejarah daripada satu masa dulu, negara-negara Islam tidak mengiktiraf Israel, tetapi sekarang mereka menerima kedudukan Israel untuk hidup bersampingan negara Palestin dalam keamanan dan keselamatan. Walaupun begitu penyelesaian komprehensif masih jauh dari dicapai.

Sehingga hari ini matlamat penubuhan negara Palestin masih lagi samar-samar kerana keengganan Israel mematuhi keputusan-keputusan serta desakan-desakan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu dan masyarakat antarabangsa. Penyataan Netanyahu baru-baru ini semasa lawatan beliau ke Amerika Syarikat mengenai status Jerusalem memaparkan sikap angkuh ‘rejim’ Israel.

Israel terus tidak menghiraukan undang-undang antarabangsa dan usul-usul Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu kerana mereka sedar yang tiada satu kuasa pun dapat memaksa Israel untuk bertindak. Israel melakukan pelanggaran undang-undang kemanusiaan antarabangsa, namun tiada apa-apa tindakan diambil terhadapnya (Goldstone Report). Tindakan Israel membina tembok pemisah (walaupun masyarakat antarabangsa menggesa supaya ia tidak berbuat demikian dan ICJ dalam penghakiman nasihat memutuskan ianya adalah bertentangan dengan undang-undang antarabangsa) tetapi Israel tidak mengendahkannya diatas alasan keselamatan. Israel terus membina perumahan diatas tanah yang bukan hak miliknya ataupun dibawah kedaulatannya dan tidak mengendahkan tuntutan masyarakat antarabangsa termasuk Amerika Syarikat. Sikap Israel tidak menghiraukannya langsung suara masyarakat antarabangsa menjadi satu perbuatan lumrah.

Buat masa ini pada pandangan saya belum ada semangat di pihak Israel yang mahukan tercapai perjanjian damai dengan Palestin. Walaupun begitu mereka cekap memanipulasikan fakta dengan kerjasama media antarabangsa yang sering tidak mahu membezakan diantara penakluk dan mangsa. Amerika Syarikat sendiri melalui kenyataan Setiausaha Negaranya Hillary Clinton telah menyuarakan ketidak senangannya terhadap Israel. Mengikut beliau tindakan Israel terus membina rumah dan melahirkan penempatan baru menyulitkan apa-apa juga kemungkinan untuk mengadakan rundingan damai. Israel berkeras dan meneruskan rancangannya. Melainkan Israel mengubah pendirian dan ‘mindsetnya’ dan bukan secara berterusan mengungkit, sememangnya mereka memiliki hak semulajadi sejak tiga ribu tahun dahulu. Kerana sikap inlah, apa juga niat untuk melahirkan keamanan tidak akan dapat direalisasikan.

Diantara sebab yang menyulitkan penyelesaian yang adil dan saksama adalah kerana setiap pelanggaran yang dilakukan Israel tidak langsung diambil apa-apa tindakan. Oleh itu Israel mengenepikan keperluan untuk kepatuhan. Disebaliknya mereka terus dilindungi. Saya memahami kezaliman yang berlaku terhadap orang-orang Yahudi semasa perang dunia kedua adalah jenayah kemanusiaan. Dimasa yang sama ia tidak patut melumpuhkan tindakan terhadap Israel keatas kegagalan atau ketidakpatuhan mereka kepada undang-undang antarabangsa dalam soal Palestin. Hari ini sudah ada suara-suara di Israel yang mahukan kedamaian, tetapi kerajaan yang disokong oleh kumpulan zionis ekstremis dan ortodoks masih berkeras dengan pendirian mereka. Ada pendapat jika perbuatan mengenepikan keputusan masyarakat antarabangsa melibatkan negara lain, sudah pasti tindakan cepat dan pantas akan diambil bagi menjamin kepatuhan kepada kehendak masyarakat antarabangsa dan PBB.

Selagi negara-negara penaung tidak bertegas dalam mencari penyelesaian, Israel akan melakukan pencabulan hak asasi ataupun melakukan penggunaan kuasa berlebihan terhadap rakyat Palestin yang tidak berdosa. Lebih malangnya negara Arab dan Islam pula lemah dan tidak mahu menggunakan keupayaan bagi mendesak penyelesaian konflik Palestin/Israel. Tanpa ada perpaduan dikalangan negara-negara Arab selama itulah pembentukan negara Palestin yang merdeka dan bebas tidak dapat direalisasikan serta akan terus tinggal sebagai impian yang tidak terlaksana. Walaupun Baitul Maqdis dan Masjid Aqsa terancam dunia Islam setakat boleh menjadi pemerhati dan melaungkan pandangan tetapi bumi Palestin terus dijajah.

Saya tidak lupa Malaysia selaku Pengerusi OIC dan NAM telah mengadakan pelbagai pendekatan melalui pertemuan dengan Setiausaha Agong PBB, Kesatuan Eropah dan Ahli-Ahli Tetap Majlis Keselamatan Bangsa-Bangsa Bersatu. Apa juga yang telah kami bincangkan, pendapat umum menegaskan hanya Amerika Syarikat sahaja yang mampu memaksa Israel. Pertemuan tersebut berjaya menyampaikan pandangan tetapi penyelesaiannya masih terletak pada Amerika Syarikat. Saya tidak melihat akan tercapai apa-apa melainkan Israel dipaksa untuk berbuat demikian.

IRAQ

Manakala “Perang Teluk” dan “Perang Iraq” adalah satu lagi insiden sejarah yang menyayat hati. Malaysia berpendirian yang semua masalah konflik bersifat antarabangsa hendaklah diselesaikan dengan menggunakan mekasnisma pelbagai hala iaitu PBB. Sewaktu Perang Teluk pada 2 Ogos 1990, Amerika Syarikat dan sekutunya telah menyerang Iraq kerana telah menyerang dan menakluk Kuwait. Tindakan Iraq adalah salah. Pendirian Malaysia berkenaan menggunakan sistem multilateral tidak disenangi oleh Kuwait dan beberapa negara teluk yang lain. Walhal Malaysia bersetuju yang penaklukan Iraq terhadap Kuwait adalah salah. Tetapi Malaysia tidak bersetuju dengan kaedah yang digunakan iaitu pengeboman negara Iraq yang menyebabkan banyak kemusnahan dan kehilangan jiwa orang-orang awam khususnya kanak-kanak, orang tua dan wanita.

Semasa lawatan saya ke Kuwait untuk membetulkan hubungan dua hala Malaysia/Kuwait yang sebelum Perang Teluk adalah baik dan mesra, saya bertemu dengan Timbalan Perdana Menteri yang juga Menteri Luar Kuwait. Beliau telah menyuarakan dengan tegas perasaan tersinggung negaranya dengan Malaysia. Sedikit sebanyak lawatan tersebut mengendurkan ketegangan hubungan dua hala diantara Malaysia/Kuwait. Amerika Syarikat pula menganggap Malaysia degil dan tidak munasabah kerana ada persepsi yang Malaysia menyokong Iraq dalam pencerobohannya keatas Kuwait. Malaysia juga tidak bersetuju dengan Amerika Syarikat dan sekutunya Britain yang melaksanakan ‘no fly zone’ diutara Iraq tanpa apa-apa resolusi dari PBB. Malaysia anggap ini adalah pencabulan hak kedaulatan wilayah negara Iraq tanpa mendapat endorsemen PBB.

Apatah lagi bila Perang Iraq dimulakan diatas alasan kerana ia mempunyai senjata pemusnah, kimia dan juga melahirkan ancaman pengganas yang amat mendesak, justru bagi Amerika Syarikat serta sekutunya menegaskan keperluan untuk menyerang Iraq. Disebaliknya sebab sebenarnya disebalik keputsan menyerang adalah bagi menjatuhkan kerajaan Saddam Hussein. Serangan tersebut telah menyebabkan kehilangan nyawa dikalangan mereka yang tidak bersalah. Amerika Syarikat mahu meletakkan pemimpin dan kumpulan yang mereka mahu untuk memimpin di Iraq. Dari mulanya Malaysia tidak yakin terhadap rasional Amerika Syarikat bagi menyerang Iraq. Malaysia berpendapat rancangan sebenarnya adalah untuk menukar regim di Iraq. Lantas membidas hebat serangan keatas Iraq kerana ia percaya bahawa tujuan sebenar adalah bagi menukar regim disitu. Pandangan Malaysia mengenai hal itu terbukti tepat dengan keterangan Tony Blair dalam prosiding di Britain terhadap perang Iraq.

Saya telah memaklumkan pendirian Malaysia kepada Setiausaha Negara Amerika Syarikat, Setiausaha Luar United Kingdom, Persatuan Eropah serta di Mesyuarat-mesyuarat Menteri Luar ASEAN dan APEC serta NAM terhadap pendirian Malaysia diatas prinsip undang-undang antarabangsa. Walaubagaimanapun majoriti negara menyokong Amerika Syarikat kerana pendirian Presiden Bush yang begitu agresif dengan membahagikan dunia kepada penyokongnya atau penentangnya. Kesan menentang Amerika Syarikat adalah berat sekali. Walaupun dalam konteks politik hubungan Malaysia dan Amerika Syarikat sentiasa berdepan dengan ketegangan, sayugia disebut yang diperingkat pelaburan dan ekonomi Amerika terus menjadi rakan perdagangan dan pelaburan yang besar.

Niat untuk mengaturkan lawatan rasmi Dr. Mahathir semasa era Bush ke Amerika Syarikat berhadapan dengan jalan buntu kerana hubungan politik Amerika Syarikat dengan Malaysia renggang kerana beberapa isu dalam negara seperti soal Anwar Ibrahim, demokrasi dan hak asasi menaunginya. Walaubagaimana pun scenario berubah selepas kejadian September 11. Amerika Syarikat khususnya Presiden Bush melihat bahawa Malaysia adalah satu-satunya negara Islam yang sederhana sepertimana Turki. Justru itu lawatan yang pada mulanya tidak mungkin berlaku telah berjaya diuruskan. Sebagai tetamu Presiden Dr. Mahathir serta delegasinya diberikan tempat penginapan di ‘Blair House’ sebagai satu penghormatan.

Perang Iraq sebenarnya mengikut analisa dari mereka yang terlibat adalah satu-satunya perang yang sengaja dicetuskan dengan melahirkan scenario yang bersandarkan fakta-fakta yang direka dan pada hari ini terbukti tidak benar, samada dari aspek ancaman, kehadiran senjata pemusnah ataupun kimia, kemampuan mengeluarkan senjata nuklear serta pusat Al-Qaeda. Alasan-alasan tersebut jelas terbukti diada-adakan untuk meyakinkan dan menghalalkan serangan keatas Iraq.

Hari ini banyak penulisan dari mereka yang terlibat atau berada dikoridor kuasa pada ketika itu meletakkan justifikasi yang digunakan bagi menyerang Iraq adalah ciptaan pentadbiran Bush semata-mata. Penaklukan Iraq tidak memberikan jawapan yang diharapkan. Iraq terus bergolak dan keganasan menjadi satu fenomena harian yang sebelumnya tidak sebegitu. Saya berasa lega membaca naskhah dan penulisan yang menyokong pendirian dan prinsip Malaysia dalam hal itu.

AFGHANISTAN

Afghanistan pula dari segi sejarah adalah sebuah negara yang tidak dapat dikuasai oleh mana-mana negara. Pihak Inggeris tidak berjaya menaklukinya. Begitu juga Rusia yang terpaksa mengundurkan tenteranya dari Afghanistan pada 15 May 1988, justru peperangan yang dipanggil ‘Soviet War’ telah berakhir pada 15 Februari 1989 sewaktu itu Presiden Mikhail Gorbachev memimpin Soviet. Kini dunia menyaksikan Amerika Syarikat serta sekutunya dibawah NATO mencuba untuk mencorakkan Afghanistan. Namun kemenangan belum pasti lagi. Negara itu terus bergolak dengan keganasan walaupun kumpulan Taliban telah dikalahkan. Sehingga sekarang Osama bin Laden tidak ditemui. Afghanistan menjadi mangsa peperangan kerana 11 September dan Taliban menjadi pemerintah di Afghanistan. Apa yang aneh pada pemerhati hubungan antarabangsa adalah September 11 tidak melibatkan orang-orang Afghanistan tetapi rakyat dari negara-negara Arab. Mereka yang terlibat terdedah dengan dunia dan pendidikan Barat bertanggungjawab kepada serangan September 11. Mengapa pula Afghanistan menjadi mangsa. Masalahnya pada ketika itu regim yang berkuasa dan memerintah Afghanistan bukanlah sehaluan dengan kehendak Amerika ataupun negara barat lain.

Negara barat berjaya meletakkan pemimpin-pemimpin yang mereka mahukan. Mereka juga berjaya meletakkan tentera NATO dibumi Afghanistan. Namun begitu kumpulan pengganas dan Taliban belum lagi diatasi sepenuhnya. Ramai orang awam terbunuh kadangkala dalam pertempuran dan ada masanya diatas kesilapan sasaran. Negara Afghanistan terus bergolak dan tidak stabil sehingga hari ini. Walaupun pilihanraya dan demokrasi dikatakan diamalkan sekarang di Afghanistan, tetapi negara tersebut terus bergolak dan terlalu tinggi kosnya daripada segi kehilangan jiwa.

Saya berpendapat peperangan tidak dapat menyelesaikan konflik ataupun menghapuskan peperangan saudara. Pendekatan yang terbaik adalah melalui rundingan dan penyelesaian politik yang dapat membentuk keselamatan dan kestabilan. Dunia terus membuat kesilapan kerana kuasa dan ketenteraan menjadi penentu kepada segala tindakan. Bila ada kehendak sebenar bagi menikmati keamanan, pada masa itula dapat dibina dunia yang aman, harmonis dan saling faham-memahami.

PEMBANGKANG BERCELARU

Selepas Mac 2008 dan keputusan PRU12, parti-parti pembangkang menjadi begitu ghairah. Pada mulanya mereka berasa yakin seolah-olah cahaya bersinar bagi mereka selepas PRU12. Masuk tahun kedua pakatan parti-parti pembangkang berhadapan dengan gerhana serta mendung mula menyelubungi pasukan mereka. Apa yang berlaku masa ini menonjolkan ketidaksepakatan bukan lagi pakatan yang diwar-warkan oleh pembangkang. Janji-janji palsu mereka untuk mengambil alih pemerintahan negara jelas berupa mimpi disiang hari. Mereka telah menggunakan pelbagai taktik yang mempamerkan matlamat menghalalkan cara bagi mengaburi mata rakyat. Bila tembelang mereka diketahui umum, maka timbullah krisis keyakinan dikalangan ahli-ahli mereka sendiri. Ada tanda-tanda jelas yang Pakatan Rakyat sudah berpecah-belah dan tidak hairan mereka akan tersungkur.

Pelbagai sebab boleh diberikan mengapa pembangkang kelihatan gagal untuk bertapak sebagai parti alternatif pada kerajaan sekarang. Cara mudah dan pendek adalah kerana faktor utama kemenangan pembangkang di PRU12 bukanlah disebabkan populariti mereka berasaskan kepada keyakinan dan kekuatan dikalangan rakyat. Ia sebenarnya adalah berpunca dari undi protes terhadap kerajaan oleh kerana persepsi rakyat terhadap kerajaan dan pemimpin BN. Rakyat dikatakan benci kepada “keangkuhan dan kesombongan” pemimpin-pemimpin Barisan Nasional dan mereka yang berada disekeliling. Mereka memang menyokong Barisan Nasional sejak dari Perikatan lagi sehingga sekarang. Apa yang sering didengar pada PRU12 rakyat mahu memberikan isyarat yang jelas kepada kerajaan BN. Hakikatnya rakyat sendiri tidak jangkakan parti kerajaan akan mengalami kekalahan yang teruk.

Pembangkang pula sebenarnya terperanjat dengan keputusan PRU12 yang tidak mereka dugakan. Ia sungguh memberangsangkan kerana berjaya menafikan majority 2/3 kepada Barisan Nasional di Parlimen serta mereka juga berjaya menawan 5 buah negeri.

Pada ketika itu, Anwar Ibrahim berjaya mengumpul parti-parti pembangkang untuk bersama melahirkan satu Barisan Pembangkang yang “credible”. Di peringkat awal ada pandangan bahawa inilah permulaan sistem dua parti di Malaysia. Jelas sekali ia menyimpang jauh dari kenyataan. Pakatan yang ditubuhkan ini bukan sesuatu yang mempunyai kemantapan dan kejituan untuk menyatu dan mempertahankan parti-parti yang berbeza ideologi dan pendekatan. Parti seperti PAS dan DAP mempunyai jurang yang luas dan tidak mudah untuk disatu dan diselaraskan walaupun PAS menunjukkan kecenderungan beralah dalam kepimpinannya untuk mengambil kuasa di peringkat persekutuan. Namun demikian untuk mendisiplinkan wakil-wakil Pakatan Rakyat sendiri dengan masing-masing memiliki pendapat dan pendirian tersendiri bukanlah sesuatu yang mudah untuk dicapai. Ini diakui sendiri oleh pemimpin-pemimpin parti pembangkang seperti PKR, DAP dan Pas.

Apa yang ketara adalah membangkang tidak sama dengan memerintah. Jelas mereka tidak berpengalaman untuk mentadbir kerajaan walaupun kebanyakan dari mereka mempunyai kelulusan akademik. Dengan latarbelakang yang berbagai-bagai, ia merumitkan kerjasama dikalangan mereka dan pegawai-pegawai awam. Untuk membangkang memang mudah tetapi untuk melahirkan dasar dan pelaksanaan tidak semudah yang mereka fikirkan.

Cita-cita Anwar Ibrahim dari mula lagi adalah untuk menjadi Perdana Menteri, yang beliau tidak mencapainya sewaktu menjadi Timbalan Perdana Menteri dibawah pimpinan Tun Dr. Mahathir. Diperingkat awal barisan pembangkang dibawah pimpinan Anwar telah membuat janji-janji yang sungguh aneh dan menakjubkan. Mereka telah gembar-gemburkan yang mereka akan menubuhkan kerajaan pada 16 September. Sekarang telah diketahui ramai bahawa apa yang Anwar ceritakan pada penyokong-penyokong serta rakyat berkenaan mendapat restu Yang DiPertuan Agong dan kononnya Panglima Angkatan Tentera adalah tidak benar. Ini adalah sebahagian taktik yang amat merbahaya yang mengheret Institusi negara tanpa asas dan kebenaran. Pendedahan-pendedahan yang telah dibuat oleh bekas-bekas ahli partinya sendiri di Parlimen menunjukkan bagaimana nafsu boleh mengatasi pemikiran rasional sehingga memfitnah orang-orang yang tidak terlibat.

Dalam keadaan kegoyahan parti-parti pembangkang Barisan Nasional tidak patut berasa selesa dan berpeluk tubuh. Barisan Nasional perlu membuat persediaan politik yang rapi untuk menawan hati rakyat kembali menyokong Barisan Nasional dalam PRU13. Ini perlu dilakukan di semua peringkat dari akar umbi hinggalah ke peringkat atasan. Sekiranya hanya sekadar berpuas hati dengan keadaan pembangkang masa ini tanpa membuat anjakan yang sesuai, maka BN akan sekali lagi kecewa. BN perlu perihatin terhadap kedudukan parti-parti komponen dalam Barisan Nasional yang amat membimbangkan. Mereka bukan dalam zon selesa. Walaupun parti-parti pembangkang lemah dan berpecah, rakyat tidak akan sokong BN jika rakyat meluat dengan tindak-tanduk Barisan Nasional tidak kira dimana-mana peringkat sekalipun. Barisan Nasional perlu disegarkan semula bagi menempuh kejayaan pada PRU13.

Jentera dan persiapan perlu dibuat dari sekarang. Permusuhan dan pertelingkahan sama sendiri perlu diatasi. Pada PRU13 ramai berpandangan yang pengundi bukan sahaja akan melihat pada parti tetapi juga pada calon yang bertanding. Kriteria yang sering disebutkan ialah calon-calon mesti diterima oleh rakyat berasaskan kredibiliti dan integriti masing-masing. Jika ia dilakukan, BN bukan sahaja akan memenangi PRU13 tetapi boleh mendapat 2/3 majoriti di Parlimen serta menawan kembali negeri-negeri yang BN kalah. Berusaha dan berdoalah untuk mencapai kejayaan.