Innocence of Muslims: Beyond Islam and the West

Earlier today, I participated in a conversation for one of the British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC’s) radio programs on the reaction to the “Innocence of Muslims” film in the Muslim world and what that said about Islam, ‘the West’, and issues of freedom of speech more generally. They had seen my previous writings (see here and here) on the subject and wanted me to discuss my views. Clips of the film, which portray the revered Prophet Muhammad in disrespectful ways, have triggered violent anti-American protests in over 20 countries and have led to at least 28 deaths.

What I said generally was this: this is basically a debate about the need to balance freedom of speech and the freedom to react. Some may think they are absolutely right in arguing that the film, despite being quite amateurish, insulting to Islam as a religion and the cause of dozens of deaths and protests, is nonetheless protected as free speech under the 1^st amendment. (In fact, this is not so straightforward, as others who argue free speech can be limited if it has the intent and likelihood of inciting imminent violence or law-breaking, and that this film meets that standard).

But the more fundamental point is that if one insists that freedom of speech should be protected, one should also accept the corresponding right of individuals who are offended to react to the film and express their views. Outrage and condemnation should be reserved only for violent protests that involve attacks on individuals or institutions, as distinguished from the many instances of peaceful protests that do not make headlines. As I told the program, we hear about violence in Pakistan that left 15 dead, but not a crowd in Malaysia who peacefully handed a memorandum over to the U.S. embassy last week in protest of the film and decried the Americans killed in the Middle East in relation to the film.

As for the countless people (including those mentioned on air during the BBC program) who insist that they have the right to make their hatred of the film public and to demand that authorities take action against the perpetrators, one caveat is in order. They must realize that there are limits to how governments and other actors can be receptive to their displeasure. “Innocence of Muslims” was made by an individual, not the United States, and the videos circulating around the world were via YouTube and owner Google, not the State Department or U.S. President Barack Obama. In fact, both President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed their displeasure with the film, publicly made this clear, and did try to get Google to block access, but ultimately there are limits to how much the U.S. government can infringe on individual rights and affect business behavior.

Too often incidents like the “Innocence of Muslims” protests (or similar past sagas like the Danish cartoons of 2005) are cast in terms of either one side’s right to say something or the other’s right to react to it, without appreciating both the potential and real limits on these freedoms and expressing empathy for the other side. One can appreciate another’s view without agreeing with it.

Some also succumb to the dangerous temptation to simplify. People have cast the debate in terms of ‘Islam vs. the West’, when most reasonable observers understand that these monoliths do not exist and there is in fact a debate within these entities about issues such as the balance of freedom and security and how to deal with a globalized world in which actors from different cultures interact faster and more frequently. Others tend to focus on the reaction to the film itself, without realizing that this is merely one outlet by which emotive outbursts are expressed, and that these outbursts have their source in other structural and contextual factors such as colonialism, socioeconomic discontent, demographic and political changes (to name just a few).

Needless to say, extremism and rigidity do little to help in situations like these where balance and moderation are required rather than self-fulfilling prophecies of civilizational clashes.

The Rising Role of Public Private Partnerships in Asian Development

Editor’s Note: The following is a guest post on the growth of public private partnerships by finance writer Diana Morton. If you wish to contribute to The Asianist, please email pprashanth711@gmail.com. 

Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) have long been a method of completing business ventures in the developed Western world. Many of the world’s largest and most challenging construction projects, such as the $3.5 billion Victorian desalination plant in Sydney and the Hudson/Bergen Light Rail in New Jersey, USA, have been made possible by the respective countries’ government teaming up with private sector companies in order to fund and operate the ventures.

In Asia, as many of the continent’s main business hubs continue to grow at an exponential rate, the PPP method is becoming an increasingly effective means to an end. Cities such as Singapore are certainly no strangers to PPPs; in 1994, the government teamed with Singapore conglomerate, Keppel, which formed a private consortium of companies, to invest in the Suzhou Industrial Park in China.  The same group of companies has since been investing in a wide range of public development projects; more recently in 2007, it played a large part in the construction of the Tianjin Eco-City project. However, until recently, the majority of investment and funding in Asian countries has come from their governments.

Private investment

Recent figures released by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) indicate that investment from private companies is now on the rise. This could well be due, in part, to the challenges faced by companies in Western countries; as their economies slow, they are now looking to invest in the development and infrastructure of Asian countries. According to the ADB, as much as 40 per cent of  global infrastructure spending will take place in Asia. With this global figure set to reach USD $40 trillion within the next 20 years, this percentage represents a huge turnaround in the way Asian countries will develop compared with their Western counterparts. This level of investment has only been made possible by the partnership of private companies with governments.

Gaining traction

Wolfgang Schiefer, Chief of Regional Partnerships at the International Labor Organization (ILO), recently said that PPPs were being increasingly used by his organization and were gaining traction in aiding international development. “Public-private partnerships (PPP) have the potential to increase the visibility and advocacy of the ILO,” he said. “They also provide a channel for influencing public and private sector investment, policies, and practices, and so promoting decent work more effectively.”

As countries become more developed, it becomes clearer that governments do not have the necessary expertise to handle large infrastructure projects single-handedly. This is why developing Asian nations are seeing an increase in the number of projects that are operated using a PPP method. The government recognizes that, in order to build the most state-of-the-art and up-to-date buildings, it is necessary to call on the help of private companies, which possess the required levels of expertise to put their projects at the forefront of technology. ”A strong PPP recognizes that the public and private sectors each have certain advantages and optimizes the allocation of tasks, obligations and risks to play to these particular strengths,” says Schiefer. “For example, the public sector can offer social responsibility, environmental awareness and local knowledge, while the private sector can offer expertise in commerce, innovation, efficiency, management and operations.”

More complex

However, as levels of development increase, so does the complexity of PPPs. Asia is beginning to see a new breed of PPPs for complex projects such as medical centers and hospitals. Simon Brooker, Director of professional services company, KPMG, says that this change from using discrete PPPs to using those with much more complex infrastructures is due to one main factor. This factor is due to the recognition of the need to scale back government involvement in the service delivery of such projects, instead handing the responsibility to private sector companies. “This is about creating and expanding commercial markets,” he said. “In other cases, economic, funding and liquidity constraints drive interest.”

Widespread benefit

PPPs have the potential to provide the highest quality infrastructures, as they provide the benefit of private sector specialist knowledge along with the security of government backing. This method, in turn, presents the opportunity of creating a more stable nation, especially since 31% of the population in Asian countries currently resides in urban regions. This figure is set to increase to more than 50% by 2050. In turn, creating stable cities and infrastructures will help the continent to deal with the issue of housing finance for low and mid-income families. While promoting the adoption of PPPs, the ADB is also putting into place initiatives for improving access to home mortgage financing. This is in response to the needs of the private sector in developing countries within the Asian continent.

Experts are now calling on Asian governments to draw up long-term national development and infrastructure plans that will encourage increased private sector involvement. This would include putting active measures in place to lower the risk of investment perceived by the private sector. If adoption of PPPs continues to rise, Asia could be on track to ensuring long term stability and prosperity.

Diana Morton is a 29 year old finance writer from England who specializes in personal finance articles for a range of magazines. She enjoys traveling and finding ways to save money on hotels, cruises and exchanging money. Her research was put to good use when she helped to arrange her brother’s marriage in Bali.

A Hint of Sino-Indian Energy Cooperation?

Editor’s Note: The following is a guest post on recent efforts at Sino-Indian energy cooperation written by finance writer Diana Morton. It argues that despite the contentious relations of the two Asian giants and diplomatic disputes over oil exploration in Vietnamese-claimed areas of the South China Sea last year, the vital role of energy in powering their economic success may create opportunities for cooperation as well.  If you wish to contribute to The Asianist, please email submissions to pprashanth711@gmail.com. 

Last month, India and China demonstrated that they may have begun to come to agreement over a number of issues relating to defense and energy. As the two often go hand-in-hand it will be interesting to see how the two most populous countries in the world, and the two major emerging economic powers around the globe, develop their mutual ambitions.

The two countries share a long border along the Himalayas peppered by independent nations such as Nepal and Bhutan. Both countries share borders with Myanmar (Burma). They do not share a maritime border, which has saved the pair from a large number of sea-related border disputes such as those between China and the Philippines or Japan and South Korea. One problem they do share, apart from a hard to define border, is a need for energy.

Neither country is yet able to draw enough resources from within its own land and sea borders to fuel its development. A well worn notion from the previous decade is that China has twenty percent of the world’s population, but America has twenty percent of the world’s energy usage. If China and India want to equal America’s per person energy usage they need to use more energy each per day than the energy world currently produces as a whole.

China National Petroleum Corp (CNPC) and the Oil & Natural Gas Corp of India (ONGC), signed an initial pact last month to undertake joint energy policies. Both companies and countries aim to combine their financial resources to better compete in the energy market and to develop new energy avenues. There are other benefits for both companies. Joint ventures make it easier to cover losses and to mitigate against bad investments. It is also easier to afford insurance and financial advisor cover for other investments and projects they may venture into together.

The deal came as no surprise to many as the companies hold joint stakes in 36 oil fields in Syria as well as others in Sudan. It also builds upon a pact signed in 2006, which was focused on the oil industry. Both sides now hope to share more information concerning their purchases and developments in all forms of energy. Previously, neither nation shared information as the two countries saw themselves as energy rivals.

International instability will form the central challenge to any joint energy development project. There is a state of almost civil war in Syria as the Arab Spring movement gains traction in the face of mounting government brutality. In Sudan there are disputes between the government and the newly independent South Sudan nation over who owns which oilfields. Other nations are in political flux or in a period of transition. Myanmar is hopefully moving towards democracy, while Zimbabwe continues to be in a state of decline.

As energy grows more scarce or needs develop, both nations will have to face the range of political issues that surround their energy needs. This is perhaps where a joint defence agreement comes in. On the sidelines of the Rio+20 Environmental Summit in Brazil, China’s Wen Jiabo and Manmohan Singh of India continued their dialogue towards an enhanced defence and security arrangement designed to facilitate a $100 billion trade target set for 2015.

At the moment talks center around infrastructure development within India and the issue of trans-border rivers. These rivers begin in one country and flow into the next. As the denizens of the Mekong know, if a river is dammed by one country, it directly affects the country into which the river flows.

Dialogue between the two leaders and their successors will have to move beyond issues that directly affect the two nations and move onto international diplomacy. At the moment, oilfields are still producing, but nations may face regime changes such as those seen in Libya and Egypt or those attempted in Bahrain and Syria. International conflicts such as those between North and South Sudan disrupt energy production and major energy consuming nations cannot afford to be held at ransom. As China is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and India is a well-respected neutral nation, both countries will need to develop a joint approach to such diplomatic problems. Do they back the regimes or regime change? How do they best secure energy? China has been accused of putting economics before ethics. If this is true, will India be able to go along a similar path? Only the future will tell.

Diana Morton is a 29 year old finance writer from England who specializes in personal finance articles for a range of magazines. She enjoys traveling and finding ways to save money on hotels, cruises and exchanging money. Her research was put to good use when she helped to arrange her brother’s marriage in Bali.