The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion
The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion |
| Posted: 17 Dec 2011 04:37 PM PST DEC 18 — I was almost late for my morning history class. I ran as far as I could while trying to keep my balance on ice and snow. By the time I entered the classroom, I was gasping for air. For the not very athletic me, it was not easy to breathe hard during a cruel Michigan winter. As I settled in my seat thinking my heart was about to explode and my lungs collapsing, the instructor said, "Today will be about what ifs. What if you were early?" The class burst into laughter at my expense. After several minutes of friendly pokes, the instructor began to share his plan for the day. "But seriously, today will be about what ifs. "What if Venice and other cities had not monopolised the spice trade? What if old European powers were unsuccessful at colonising Asia? What if Dien Bien Phu did not happen? What if the United States had not entered the Second World War? There were many more what ifs. We were discussing colonialism in Asia and we were exploring the importance of certain events by trying to imagine an alternative history where those events did not occur. It required a broad understanding of history. It required all of us in the class to do our voluminous readings. A lot of us, being freshmen and still patting ourselves on our backs for getting into a storied school, did not finish our reading. We gave it a stab anyway. We had enough imagination to run wild. That old memory reran in my mind as President Barack Obama finally, for better or for worse, fulfilled one of his election promises. The US is officially withdrawing from Iraq after more than eight years since the invasion that toppled the former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The withdrawal ceremony was being telecast "live" on CNN. As I sat in my chair listening to Leon Panetta making his speech, my mind wandered to Egypt, Libya, Tunisia and the rest of the Arab world. Remembering my freshman lesson, I asked myself, "What if the US had not invaded Iraq back in 2003?" Would Saddam Hussein's regime have become a victim of the Arab Spring? We will never know but nobody can say that would have been impossible. Whether a person is supportive of the war or vehemently rejects the invasion, he or she cannot deny that Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator. That makes his removal desirable to some extent. If the 2003 invasion was legitimate in some ways, many in the anti-war camp would support or at least not reject the invasion. If Saddam Hussein was toppled organically by Iraqis just like how Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi and Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali were toppled, many more would support the regime change. An Arab Spring for Iraq would have been ideal. It would have removed a dictator without causing bad blood betwewen various sides. Yes, it would be eight years later but in a time of terrorism and religious extremism, a world without the 2003 invasion of Iraq could have spurred deeper co-operation between the US and those that mattered. A world without the war would have the US possibly swamped with goodwill of the kind it received in the aftermath of the September 11 attack but soon after squandered in the run-up to the 2003 war. It could be the case, or it could not. Just as Japan in the Second World War made the colonised natives realise that colonial European powers were not invincible, the US invasion also reminded the Arabs that their dictators were not gods. Sure, the United States of the 2000s was not Japan of the 1900s that was seriously underestimated first by the Russians and then later all the colonial powers in South-east Asia. Still, what is possible is not always evident until somebody makes it a reality. The US with its unmatched military might removed Saddam Hussein. The US made possible a regime change. Or — this might sound repulsive, especially for those in the anti-war camp but consider this – the Arab Spring might not have happened without the 2003 invasion. An alternative reality without the war would have taken away the realization of the possibility, and possibly affected the psyche of the Arabs. What was possible would have remained only one of the possibilities deep in the minds of ordinary men, never to surface to the real world. A world without the war also would have taken away the anger against the US. The US in many parts of the Middle East and Northern Africa had close relationships with many Arab dictators. The relations were maintained in the name of stability and much to the detriment to the freedom agenda. The ordinary man in the streets of the Arab world, already with a low opinion of the US, saw the relationship as a constant reminder of how much they disliked their own autocrats. This only added to local frustrations that had nothing to do with the US directly. All that anger and frustration, along with the cumulative effect of all those issues, created a momentum to push history to converge to a point that sparked the Arab Spring. Without the war, part of the momentum would not have existed. The cumulative anger without the invasion might not have been enough to start the Arab Spring. That sans-Iraq anger might have been just a weak undercurrent, never to surface and threaten the dictators' expensive boats, rocked gently by the pleasant waves. There are a lot of other considerations as well. Maybe without the war, the US would have enough money to bail out Europe. Maybe, Obama would not have been elected as the president. Maybe, we would be still swimming in cheap oil. Maybe. Maybe. Who knows, really? At least we know one part of history is ending. At least we know the next chapter is a whole new world, for whatever it's worth. * The views expressed here are the personal opinion of the columnist. Full content generated by Get Full RSS. |
| Alkisah katak dan katak politik Posted: 17 Dec 2011 04:12 PM PST 18 DIS — Istilah "katak" sering kali merujuk kepada seekor haiwan amfibia yang berdarah sejuk, yang mempunyai daya lompatan yang kuat. Toleh sahaja kepada wajah katak mungkin boleh menyebabkan seseorang itu hilang selera untuk makan mahupun menjadikan mereka fobia untuk menyentuh atau melihat ke arah haiwan berkenaan. Sudah tentu katak tidaklah begitu menggerunkan dan berbisa jika dibandingkan dengan ular namun katak mempunyai peranannya tersendiri. Bercakap mengenai katak, mengingatkan penulis dengan katak tetapi katak yang dimaksudkan di sini ialah katak-katak politik dan bukannya katak sembarangan. Bunyinya mungkin agak pelik sedikit dan sinis. Ada yang bertanya mana mungkin katak boleh berkecimpung dalam arena politik. Tambahan pula, katak tidak berparti, katak juga tidak mengerti untuk berkempen dan katak hanya tahu melompat dari satu tempat ke tempat yang lain. Memang benar katak tidak berkecimpung dalam politik tetapi sekurang-kurangnya katak mempunyai integritinya tersendiri. Sekurang-kurangnya dia tahu bahawa tugasnya adalah untuk mencari makanan bagi memastikan kelangsungan hidupnya. Berbanding pula dengan perwatakan katak-katak politik, mereka ini lebih bersifat talam dua muka, oportunis dan boleh berpaling tadah bila mana keadaan semasa tidak memihak kepadanya. Jelas, katak-katak politik sedemikian semakin ketara dalam persada politik negara mutakhir ini. Bagi katak-katak politik sebegini, melompat parti merupakan satu amalan biasa dan tidak salah selagi ia sesuai dengan kepentingan semasanya. Lagipun, apakah yang lebih penting daripada memastikan kelangsungannya terjamin? Pokok pangkalnya, usah bercakap mengenai prinsip dengan pemimpin-pemimpin terbabit. Di mata mereka, soal memperjuangkan prinsip hanyalah satu pentas untuk meraih sokongan pengundi pada musim pilihan raya sahaja. Apa yang dicakapnya mungkin berlawanan dengan apa yang dijanjikan sebelumnya. Dan rakyat dari satu sudut pula terpaksa menelan kepalsuan tahun demi tahun hingga kesabarannya mulai terhakis. Apabila beberapa pemimpin pembangkang yang mengumumkan keluar parti daripada Pakatan Rakyat baru-baru ini atas alasan hilang kepercayaan terhadap kepimpinannya, ia bukanlah sesuatu yang mengejutkan. Lagipun, ke mana mereka boleh pergi selepas melompat parti? Membuka perniagaan sendiri? Ataupun bersara terus? Lebih menetapi ramalan dalam skrip ini ialah mereka akan seterusnya berkata, mereka tidak mahu rakyat menjadi mangsa. Kepada pemimpin-pemimpin politik ini, mohon janganlah menggunakan rakyat sebagai justifikasi untuk menghalalkan amalan tidak beretika itu. Apa yang cuba dilakukan oleh katak-katak politik dengan melompat parti membuktikan undi rakyat tidak penting untuk mereka. Ia secara terang-terangan menunjukkan mandat rakyat telah diperlekehkan ke tahap yang begitu rendah. Apakah pemimpin-pemimpin sedemikian tidak tahu malu dengan perbuatan tidak beretika itu? Wah, bukan main senang nak umum keluar parti lepas itu umumkan nak sertai parti politik yang lain. Apakah mereka ingat bahawa melompat parti semudah menyalin baju baru? Mereka harus belajar menghormati mandat yang diberikan oleh rakyat. Undi yang diberikan itu bukanlah kertas kosong semata-mata. Setiap undi yang dipangkah itu yang akan menentukan jatuh bangunnya sesebuah parti politik mahupun pemimpin mereka. Sokongan yang mereka berikan bermakna mereka percayakan pemimpin yang dipilih itu. Tetapi dengan melompat parti, katak-katak politik itu bukan sahaja telah mengkhianati mandat rakyat bahkan juga memberi gambaran yang cukup buruk terhadap imej pemimpin-pemimpin politik kononnya semua pemimpin politik mempunyai mentaliti sebegitu. Jangan pula selepas ini katak-katak politik melenting kerana rakyat mempunyai pandangan negatif terhadap mereka kerana sentimen negatif itu wujud kerana angkara mereka sendiri. Sudah sampai masanya pemimpin-pemimpin begini ditolak keluar dari persada politik negara kerana ia mengaibkan imej pemimpin-pemimpin politik lain yang komited berkhidmat untuk rakyat. Justeru, janganlah disebabkan setitik nila, rosak susu sebelanga. Masih ada pemimpin-pemimpin politik di luar sana yang baik, jujur dan ikhlas untuk berkhidmat walaupun tidak sebanyak mana. Sesungguhnya, rakyat lebih rela menerima seorang katak yang bermaruah daripada katak yang hanya pandai mengambil kesempatan, menabur janji-janji kosong dan mengaibkan profesion yang diceburinya sendiri. Katak oh katak! * Segala pandangan yang diberikan di atas hanyalah pandangan peribadi penulis. Full content generated by Get Full RSS. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan