冰的起点

发现一个女人的蜕变，是看着她从恋爱、结婚以及当妈妈之后所经历的变化，再从身上散发出来的魅力。

有人说，女生最漂亮的时候，是十七、八岁，正值花样年华。也有人说，恋爱中的女生最美丽，因为有爱情滋润。有人认为女人结婚当天是最漂亮的，因为她找到了可以付托终身的人。也有人觉得，女人怀孕是她最美丽的时候，因为肚子里有个生命正在孕育着。

最近在阿姨家住了几天，发现当妈妈之后的她改变了许多。我没有机会见证自己母亲的蜕变过程，可是我相信她在当妈妈之前也曾经有过精彩的单身生活，当妈妈之后，为了孩子，她：

自霹雳州再度变天后，其余由民联政府执政的州属先后传出不利于民联的消息。不知道这一切纯属巧合、民联流年不利，还是某人精心策划的一场比“珠光宝气”更为紧凑的连续剧。最近的黄洁冰半裸照风波更令我想起了“骨牌效应”的理论。

“骨牌效应”，英语为 Domino Theory，是用于形容小小的初始能量能导致的连锁反应。在国际政治里，骨牌效应曾被用于冷战时期形容共产主义的渲染力。当时的国际社会相信一旦共产党在中国成功执政，共产主义将迅速蔓延到亚洲国家，尤其是东南亚发展中国家，这些国家将被共产主义控制。“骨牌效应”也被广泛地用作政治宣传目的。

霹雳州变天后，接踵而来的是吉打州州议员阿鲁慕甘不堪政治压力辞职，再来就是雪州黄洁冰州议员兼州行政议员半裸照风波，令民联受到连番打击。

另一方面，巫统大选即将到来，而纳吉副相也即将在三月底接棒成为大马第六任首相。换个角度看，霹雳州变天一战犹如纳吉副相的预试，或模拟考试。这场模拟考试的重要性，在于测试这个未来首相是否能够力挽狂澜，在308政治海啸后收复失地，同时挽回基层对党的信心，并动摇人民支持民联政府的信心。

不管这些不利于民联的事情是否由国阵策划，大大小小的风波已经令各个民联执政的州属“变天”的传闻甚嚣尘上。人们开始猜测吉打和雪州是否会先后落入国阵的手里。要是事情真的如此发展下去，“骨牌效应”将应验。即使“变天”在短期内无法实现，这个未来的首相似乎已经因为“骨牌效应”的政治宣传而成功地捞取了一些政治资本。真是一举两得！

百花里，我最喜欢的是郁金香。很可惜，我从来没有收过郁金香。可能是郁金香在这里不很普遍，又或者玫瑰和百合都是本地最受欢迎的花卉，所以人们想不起郁金香。喜欢郁金香，是因为它不需华丽的包装也能散发出一种高雅的气质。郁金香的花语是：博爱、体贴、高雅、富贵、能干以及聪颖。

今年的情人节很特别，分别收到了两束花。一束是百合，共12朵。一束是红玫瑰，共有三枝。情人节收到花并不是特别的事，可是送花人的身份令两束花带来不同的意义。百合花是在情人节一大早送到我家。送花人经过了大概两星期的努力找到了我的地址送上的，是厚厚的诚意。即使没有成为情侣，看到那束花，还是觉得很感动。





另一束红玫瑰是在下午收到的，送花人是个老朋友。如果没记错的话，三朵红玫瑰的花语应该是 “我爱你”。然而这束花的花语对我来说是“贴心的友情”。我们相约在下午一起去KTV唱了三个小时。或许是想到今年是我过去七年来第一次没有情人陪伴渡过的情人节吧？为了照顾我的感受，他很有风度地买了一束花送我。真的很贴心，谢谢你！

每一年的情人节总是会有好多花和花语的特写内容出现在报章、杂志里头。其实真正的花语，是用心去体会的。或许99朵的玫瑰真的象征着爱你长长久久，但只要送花人出自真心，一朵玫瑰也能够一生一世^_^

今天是我回到家乡两个多礼拜来第二次爬山。虽然山就在我家旁边，但就是提不起劲去爬山。和父母亲风雨不改的爬山习惯相比之下真的自行惭愧。

怡保素有“山城”之称。顾名思义是被群山环绕的城市。这里没有像吉隆坡都市的喧闹，民风朴素，没有钢骨水泥的森林，多了一份大都会的恬静。回到家里，最享受的就是这份平静.

太久没有运动了，第一次爬山的接下来几天，下半身肌肉酸痛得不得了。可能是没有做好热身的准备，又或许是年纪真的大了，呵呵！今天我再次挑战自己，今天肌肉酸痛的情况好像比较轻了^^

从这两次的爬山经验，我发现自己体验了不同的感觉，尤其是当我一步一步，慢慢地向上走，有一种脚踏实地的感觉，蛮好的。 虽然没有办法到达山顶，可是山上有个花园，能够眺望怡保的景色。阵阵的凉风吹来，让人精神抖擞，感觉真的好棒！

最近真的被好多烦恼围绕着。到了山上再看看踩在脚下的大地，觉得自己很渺小。烦恼虽然还存在，可是困扰我的程度瞬间减少了。视野变得辽阔了，心情也变得开朗了。

万里望的升旗山虽不及槟城的闻名，可它还是当地人舒展筋骨的热点，也是我从小就比较常去户外活动的地方。当我到了山上，再往下看，那种“这就是我的家乡”的感觉强烈地充斥在我的内心深处。我爱这片土地，也爱这样的风情！

2008年的政治大海啸让我们见识了民主的力量，造就了霹雳州的民联政府。然而十个月后，我们再次见证了民主是如何被践踏！

在2008年的大选， 民联以31议席vs国阵的28议席，取得霹雳州的执政权。然而，308 后一浪接一浪有关跳槽的流言蜚语，却让大马的政治前景充满了暗涌。终于，在2009年的二月，4名民联代议士前后退党后再将政治意愿投向国阵，霹雳州宣告变天。

民主和选举还有意义吗？民联政府在去年夺权被称之为“意外”，是始料不及的。在大选中民联虽然只以三个议席之差取胜，民联还是霹雳州人民所选出来的政府。这就是民主--由人民选择，由人民主导。

今天，人民的抉择没有被尊重，中选的人民代议士退党、跳槽等的行为践踏了民主！人民对他们的委托与信任，等同被出卖！或许有人会说这就是在大选投票时选党不选人 的结果，然而在选党还是选人的课题上却又包含了人民对政党政治纲要的接受性，对改革原有政府的期盼，还有对人选赋予委托的可信性，三者之间的矛盾和复杂性。要不是人民不再满意原有的执政党，放弃支持他们，民联又有何机会在大选中胜出？迫使人民选党不选人的到底是那令人惧怕的反风，还是令人 失望的执政表现促使人民力求改变，答案呼之欲出！

政治是肮脏吗？其实不然！是卑劣的手段令人觉得政治是肮脏的！尤其是以侵略践踏民主自由的手段夺取政权，忽视人民的自主权！这样的政党领袖只重视个人利益，对人民的意愿采取不闻不问的态度！如此人物视民主如粪土，任由他摆布，多元种族的马来西亚要是由这等人执政，犹如把国家推入万劫不复之地！可恨！可悲！可恶！可怜！

'International law is an instrument used by the powerful nations to oppress the weak nations' was a question given by my lecturer as part of the coursework evaluation in the class on 'International Law'. From my reading, I've come out with the following writing to answer the question. It might not be a very good writing, but I think it is one of my best pieces throughout the three years of my study ^_^

INTRODUCTION
Centuries before the emergence of the nation states, interactions between the different continents in the world were limited; precisely, there was no interaction. In fact, communication and interaction were restricted to the poor development of communication system. In those days, relations between the nowadays “nation-states” was limited to the extent that, laws of nations was not required to maintain the then “international system”.

The resolution of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 eventually marks the beginning of the modern world—the emergence of nation-states and the current international system. However, the existence of international law in the other analogous forms existed far before this modern era. According to John O’Brien (2001), “Records exist of the making of treaties and the sending of ambassadors from at least the time of ancient Egypt” (pg. 5). Indeed the conflict between Egypt and the Hittites in 1269 BC was brought to an end by a peace treaty; nonetheless, around 1100 BC, Ramases II of Egypt concluded an agreement with the King of the Hittites pledging peace and brotherhood. These had actually set the layout of the current international law that is being practiced today.

However, the interaction in today’s international system is a complicated one. The lack of a central authority had left the international system an anarchic. International actors are not only subjected to the state actors; the non-state actors may as well exercise its influence in the global perspective. International relations nowadays are about the interactions between and among international actors—state actors, non-state actors, and those between state and non-state actors. The role of international law has grown world-wide. Yet, the compliance of the international actors to that of the international law remains suspected and blurred, eventually, the accountability of the international law is being questioned, whether the law had actually secured the will and interests of all the nations, regardless of the states’ capacities.

INTERNATIONAL LAW—AN OVERVIEW
There have been a lot of arguments and discussion on the credibility of international law as “law”. Anthony Clark Arend (2004) elucidated that, “…one of the greatest criticism levelled against international law is that it is not really ‘law’” (pg. 903). This is mainly due to the fact that the current international system is lack of a central authority. David Robertson (2002) asserted that, “Legal theorists still debate whether or not international law really is law…because there exists no mechanism for enforcing judgments (pg. 243). However, in this paper work, international law will be discussed in such a way that international law is law and it had been exercised as a diplomatic means to conduct international relations.

International law is being refined as a system that regulates the behaviours of states, where states are the principal actors on the international scene. According to Anthony Clark Arend (2004), international law is “consisting of a set rules that are binding on international actors….the actors to whom it is addressed are under an obligation to carry out these rules”, stressing that the international actors are typically described as binding on both state and non-state actors (pg. 897-898). The ‘Oxford Companion to Politics of the World’ (1993) proposed that, “The body of legal standards, procedures, and institutions governing the social intercourse of sovereign states is known as international law” (pg. 440). On the other hand, ‘The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought’ (1991) defined international law as, “that body of rules and usages which collectively govern the relations between and among states. Depending on the context, ‘international law’ can refer to ….positive international law, customary international law, the principles of international law, and the theory of international law” (pg. 246).

International law is divided into public international law and private international law, in which public international law governs the relations between states, and those between states and international organization. Public international law consists of the generally understood rules governing the relations between states, as well as an enormous mass of treaty-based specific regulations (David Robertson, 2002, pg. 243). Thus, it can be concluded that fundamentally, the international law concerns primarily the relations between state actors; whereas the private international law is the body of rules and arbitration agreements covering contractual arrangements between non-governmental bodies from different countries.

What is the ultimate objective of international law? According to ‘The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World’ (1993), the main purpose of international law is to “orient and channel the foreign policy of states so as to further relationships of coexistence and cooperation” (pg. 440). The international law has been used broadly as a diplomatic measure, nevertheless, an instrument of foreign policy of a state to achieve its national interests. In today’s international system, the member countries of the United Nations are obliged to the Charter of the United Nations. Meanwhile, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), International Criminal Court (ICC), World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) serve as the main resource of recommendations that constitute most of the customary and international treaties (sources of international law).

POWERFUL AND WEAK NATIONS
In the justification of such a question, the powerful nations and the weak nations should be defined. Besides that, it is important to clarify the meaning of the question and then the appropriate aspect that should be discussed, to present a better picture of the international scene.

When international law is being seen as an ‘instrument’, it is referring to the usage of international law in a legal means which constitutes to the misuse of international law, but not the violation of international law. In this writing, the violation of international law refers to that of breaking of rules (in the context of international law—the treaties, conventions and customary laws). This is important such that when the violation of international law occurs, the rules-breaker is actually regardless of the existence of the international law. In simple words, when one does anything regardless of the international law that one is obliged to, to that state, the international law actually does not exist, thus it is not being ‘used’ as an instrument.

The term ‘oppress’ in this paperwork is defined as actions including the unjust and immoral actions towards the weak nations, politically, economically and socially. It should be clarified that law does not confine to conform morality and justice. In the spectrum of law, the only distinction that exists is that between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’. Therefore, the context in which this paper is focusing is: Is international law being used in a legal way by the powerful nations to oppress the weak, resulting in benefits gained by the powerful nations, whereas the weak nations suffering from the damages and casualties that are brought about.

What constitutes a nation to be considered as powerful or weak? In the international system, the powerful nations are fundamentally those with strong economic power, high rate of literacy, nonetheless, and the advanced military power. In the current international system, G8 are considered as powerful nations. On the other hand, the weak nations are those highly dependent on the powerful nations for their capitals in terms of foreign investments, transfer of technologies to assist development of the country. This is distinguished when such countries are actually in debt to the international monetary institutions. These nations include mainly the Third World countries.

Focusing on the use of treaty, the use of force and sanctions, the following part of the paper will be focusing on a few cases that constitutes to the misuse of international law as an instrument to oppress the weak nations by the powerful nations.

THE USE OF TREATY
The Panama Canal: The Surrender of Territorial Sovereignty
The reduction of territorial sovereignty of Panama in a ten-mile-wide strip across the isthmus of the current Panama Canal serves a distinguished example of how a powerful nation—the United States oppressed the weak nation—Panama. The Panama Canal has been the most important sea lines of communication and commercials for the United States, economically and militarily. Since 1903, Panama did not exercise its sovereignty on its own land. Ironically, the United States had been exercising its de facto sovereignty in the canal. In fact, it was the U.S. that put the country under such situation through the 1903 Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty.

One of the most important figures who are responsible for the reduction of sovereignty of Panama in the Panama Canal is Philippe Bunau-Varilla, the one upon whom the leaders of the Panamanian revolution had relied for advice. However, Bunau-Varilla was also representing the successor company to Ferdinand de Lesseps’s (who had won a concession from Columbia—the formal colonist of Panama to build the Panama Canal) bankrupt enterprise. He signed the 1903 treaty which gave the Untied States to build a canal and also granted in perpetuity the use, occupation, and control of a ten-mile strip of land across the middle of Panama (adapted from Robert W. McElroy, 1992, pg. 123). In return, the United States granted the independence of Panama, to pay the new government US$ 10 million for the canal and Canal Zone rights, and to pay an annual fee of US$250,000.

Although the Panamanian delegation that later arrived in Washington was devastated by the terms of the treaty, especially the exchange of ‘money’ between Bunau-Varilla and the residual rights to the canal concession, they had no choice but to agree with the treaty. This is done mainly for the raison dêtre of the country. According to Congressional Research Service (1977):
…the United States would withdraw its protection of Panamanian independence if the new treaty were not ratified by Panama. Thus on December 2, 1903, the Panamanian junta, citing the “indispensable need” to guarantee U.S. support for the independence of Panama, consented to the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty and surrendered its powers of sovereignty over the centrepiece of its national territory. (As adapted from Robert W. McElroy, 1992, pg. 124)

The 1903 Treaty is indeed a valid treaty, ratified by the Panamanian government. However, it had greatly oppressed the sovereignty of Panama by using the legal framework of the international law. Using the 1903 treaty, the Canal Zone had its own American police, American court system, and American jails; Panamanians who committed crimes within the Zone were prosecuted by American authorities; overt discriminatory aspects to the administration of the Zone in terms of educations and vacancies, even infrastructures such as drinking fountains for Americans and Panamanians are separated (Robert W. McElroy, 1992, pg. 124). It was indeed a form of ‘Apartheid’ in Panama.

THE USE OF FORCE
The Invasion of Iraq 2003: Pre-emptive Strike: Legality and Morality
After the incident of September 11, the world seems to be drawn into the great phobia towards terrorisms. The United States which suffers the greatest casualties from the collapse of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was ‘given’ most sympathies by the public community. Aided by Great Britain and Australia, the legality of the military invasion of Iraq in 2003 by the United States was claimed upon the possession of sufficient legal authority to use force against Iraq pursuant to Security Council resolutions adopted in 1990 and 1991. The Bush administration asserted that the U.S. had a legal right to use force “in the exercise of its inherent right of self defense, recognized in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
Indeed, the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was fundamentally being launched in the name of self-defense, precisely—it was a pre-emptive strike. Firstly, the nation of Iraq was being accused of possession and development of weapons of mass destructions (WMD), nonetheless, the ‘secret link’ between the state leader—Saddam Hussein and the global Islamist terrorists group—Al-Qaeda. Basically, these are the two main reasons other than the distinguished abuse of human rights in the country. However, the pre-emptive strike launched by the America is questionable, whether it is a way of oppressing the weak nation by using international law.
Adapted from the writing of Anthony Clark Arend (2003) in “International Law and the Preemptive Use of Military Force”:
Under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, states were to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.” In the charter, there were only two explicit exceptions to this prohibition: force authorized by the Security Council and force in self-defense. Under Article 38, the council is empowered to determine if there is a “threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.” If the Security Council so determines, it can authorize the use of force against the offending state under Article 42. (Pg. 91-92)

From the writing above, it is clear that any use of force or threat of use of force on the basis of self-defense is legal to be taken. However, there exist some grey areas within the UN Charter of self-defense jurisdiction. Article 51 state that:
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security (pg. 92)

The 2003 invasion of Iraq serves no concrete and visible evidence of the country involving in development of WMD; whereas the claimant of Saddam Hussein having connection with Al-Qaeda was simply a falsification. The invasion of Iraq can be viewed as the attempts of the powerful nations to oppress the weak nations, whether in the name of counter Islamist terrorists, or solely for the rich petroleum resources in the land of the Middle East region.

In fact, the Islamist terrorist group is actually a decentralized terrorist network—the non-state international actor. The war in Iraq primarily pointed that the state of Iraq is a terrorist state. Joseph M. Schwartz (April, 2004) asserted that, “The U.S. invasion of Iraq marked a dangerous transformation of the “war against terrorism” into a war against “terrorist states”” (pg. 285). He responded that the invasion of Iraq in the doctrine of ‘just war’ against terrorism threaten the excessive use of state military force instead of an efficacious, nuanced police response to a decentralized terrorist network (pg. 275). According to Michel Chossudovsky (2004), “…the Just War theory in its modern day version is an integral part of war propaganda and media disinformation, applied to gain public support for a war agenda.” This resulted in the violation of the weak nation’s sovereignty, nevertheless, more wars and eventually threatens the global peace.

ECONOMIC SANCTIONS
Iraq: Economic Sanctions since Persian Gulf War
Under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, the Security Council can take enforcement measures to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such measures range from economic and/or other sanctions not involving the use of armed force to international military action. The Council has resorted to mandatory sanctions as an enforcement tool when peace has been threatened and diplomatic efforts have failed. Such sanctions included comprehensive economic and trade sanctions and/or more targeted measures such as arms embargoes (Retrieved from UN Security Council Sanctions Committeess website, 2007).

The well-kept record of the United States manipulation of the sanctions program to Iraq since 1991 portrays a good example of the powerful nations oppressing the weak using international law. Within the UN Security Council, the United States has been oppressing the nation by all means. Joy Gordon (2002) asserted that:
…the United States has consistently thwarted Iraq from satisfying its most basic humanitarian needs, using sanctions as nothing less than a deadly weapon, and, despite recent reforms, continuing to do so. Invoking security concerns—including those not corroborated by U.N. weapons inspectors—U.S. policymakers have effectively turned a program of international governance into a legitimized act of mass slaughter. (Retrieved from Harper’s Magazine—electronic version).

The sanctions that are being posed by the UN on Iraq is said to be the most comprehensive one. According to Joy Gordon (2002), “…virtually every aspect of the country's imports and exports is controlled….an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children under the age of five have died as a result of the sanctions”. He elucidated that:
…the United States has fought aggressively throughout the last decade to purposefully minimize the humanitarian goods that enter the country. And it has done so in the face of enormous human suffering, including massive increases in child mortality and widespread epidemics. It has sometimes given a reason for its refusal to approve humanitarian goods, sometimes given no reason at all, and sometimes changed its reason three or four times, in each instance causing a delay of months. Since August 1991 the United States has blocked most purchases of materials necessary for Iraq to generate electricity, as well as equipment for radio, telephone, and other communications. Often restrictions have hinged on the withholding of a single essential element, rendering many approved items useless. For example, Iraq was allowed to purchase a sewage-treatment plant but was blocked from buying the generator necessary to run it; this in a country that has been pouring 300,000 tons of raw sewage daily into its rivers. (Retrieved from Harper’s Margazine—electronic version).

Therefore, from the case above, it can be concluded that the United States, had been abusing the very fundamental right of a state by imposing sanctions that eventually resulted in the mass destruction in a weak nation, politically, economically, and socially. Such immoral actions were being done by ‘utilizing’ her position in the UN Security Council, using the legal framework of the UN Charter, oppressing the weak nation—in this case, Iraq.

CONCLUSION
Referring to the above examples, it can be concluded that international law is an instrument used by the powerful nations to oppress to weak. Indeed, in term of international treaties, in the use of force, even the economic sanctions which sound just, both the intention and the implications of such international law had resulted in various damages to the weak nations, politically, economically and socially. Although the use of international law in such occasions is legal, it was immoral and unjust to the Third World nations involved. These nations become the victims under the legal framework.