Of course, what the ex-Sungai Buloh resident alludes is the "Arab Spring".
A commentary by neocon John Hopkins fellow, "Neoconservatives and the Arab Spring", on the revolutions gives an invaluable insight to Neocon Israel nexus, Islamists, American styled democratic aspirations and consequences.
The commentary has numerous quotes relevant to this post but in the gamut of highbrowed observation, this teeny bit, is most apt,
"The net effect was to make the region less free, more violent, and poorer than it would have been."
How can anyone give Anwar any credence when his hypocrisy is confirmed again in an answer during Q&A,
"This is also a problem, but if you have the institutions in place as seen in Indonesia—there are very strong Islamic parties; there are even Islamic parties that call for the formation of an Islamic state and the application of Shariah; they were allowed to contest. I wouldn’t agree with their position, but I must respect their right to espouse their view.Who, who are we to say, “Well, these groups can’t contest because they are Islamic and therefore does not conform to our thinking”? I mean, you are suppose to be a liberal—you talk about democracy—you allow them. But I believe that if you have institutions of civil society in place, clear constitutional provisions, and have a free media and have an open discourse, people will decide. In the Indonesian experience, people have decided for a moderate system of governance, wisely so. Even in the worst-case scenario (not necessarily to me), if an Islamic Party takes over power and applies some provisions of Islamic Law, you have a clear constitutional provision that allows for a latitude; beyond that it is transgressing the constitutional framework, which you cannot do. But even if they do it, then the next time around—the next 4 years—there will be elections where the people can endorse their rule or can topple their rule. Why must we have this phobia, as many Americans have? I fail to understand. I’m not saying that I support the other position; but I think to call yourself a liberal democrat as long as there is a free market, there’s freedom of expression, there’s freedom of religion—that is not to be compromised. Then it should be ok."
Hardcore Anwaristas and Pakatanis will accuse me of spinning, in my emphasis of his "Islamic state and the application of Shariah", that Anwar did not specifically state what he did not agree to.
There is no spin. At The Ismail Faruqi Award Presentation Ceremony in his International Islamic University Malaysia in February 1995, regarding PAS' Syariah Hudud laws, this is what Anwar pronounced,
"In the context of Malaysia today, this misconception is further compounded by the problem posed by those who, in their desire to gain political mileage, have called for the implementation of the hudud. It did not matter that the hudud laws they have drafted were not based strictly on established methodology of Islamic jurisprudence. Naturally the resultant Bill that was drafted contains serious contradictions and glaring defects in respect of such crucial matters as the scope of the crime, the nature of the evidence required as well as the punishment to be meted out. And worst, they have completely disregarded the paramount objectives of the Shariah itself. This is indeed a most retrograde move."
As for an Islamic state, would these diehard Anwaristas and Pakatanis dare to demand Anwar's position of an Islamic state for Malaysia? Please demand it now.
I am very sure Pakatanis of the DAP kind will be more than interested to know Anwar's stand, being anointed Prime Minister elect of a Pakatani Government by the DAP Secretary General himself, Lim Guan Eng.
The revolution in Libya is now "complete". War drums are now pounding for Syria and Iran, an extension of the "Arab Spring" for "freedom and democracy".
Many are condemned as "conspiracy theorists" when they claim that "Arab Spring" is nothing more than US, and now NATO aggression in Libya, to topple regimes are purely for the control of oil.
The failure to produce a single weapon of mass destruction, being the reason for the war monger Bush to invade Iraq, is ample ammunition for the many "conspiracy theorists".
Many will recall the Asian financial crises of 1997 and the Malaysian solution which vindicated Tun Mahathir. This gave rise to the Tun mooting Gold Dinar as a currency for trade to prevent currency speculation of the Soros kind.
That Anwar adopted IMF solutions for the crisis and his close association with Wolfowitz is well documented. One such document 29 Apr 2005 by Mike Billington, "Malaysia’s Anwar Ibrahim: Wolfowitz’s Knife in Asia’s Back" in the Executive Intelligence Review,
Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, refused to subject its population to IMF dictates. Nonetheless, Dr. Mahathir at first allowed Anwar, who was then his Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, to follow his personal preference for what became know as “IMF policies without the IMF”: across the board austerity, interest rate hikes, and the cancellation of major infrastructure projects.
"So, the allegations that we, I in particular, had to resort to the IMF and World Bank is a lie. We did not. At no time did we apply or appeal to the World Bank or IMF for funds, because we had the funds."
Again this is part and parcel of Anwar's specialty, distorting facts.
That being said, there are a lot of beguiling information and admission from Anwar of his actions, in that forum.
Mike Billinton on 12 Sep 2008, wrote another piece on Anwar, "British Empire Tool To Recolonize Malaysia", detailing Anwar's neoconnections.
You would be wondering by now what the Gold Dinar got to do with the "Arab Spring".
Accuse me of having "conspiracy" theories but I too held the opinion that "Arab Spring" are US hegemonistic designs to control or exert control over oil producing Arab lands.
Iraq, 4th, Libya 7th and Iran 3rd in oil reserves of the top ten oil producing countries where all are US dominant Arab countries except Venezuela 2nd and Nigeria 10th, surely supports this hypothesis.
Venezuela having a rough ride with the US cannot be of coincidence.
That is the general "conspiracy" theory expounded.
But it is too simplistic.
There is another more sinister but coherent reason for US expedient control of oil.
One which Tun Mahathir may have been cognisant to.
Giving a very thorough history of the US dollar worthiness here at Energy Bulletin, Dr Krassimir Petrov writes "The Iranian Oil Exchange Proposal And The Demise Of The Dollar" asserting in much detail, that it is not oil per se that the US need control over but the continued use of US dollars for it's trade,
"In 1971, as it became clearer and clearer that the U.S Government would not be able to buy back its dollars in gold, it made in 1972-73 an iron-clad arrangement with Saudi Arabia to support the power of the House of Saud in exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars for its oil. The rest of OPEC was to follow suit and also accept only dollars. Because the world had to buy oil from the Arab oil countries, it had the reason to hold dollars as payment for oil.
Because the world needed ever increasing quantities of oil at ever increasing oil prices, the world's demand for dollars could only increase. Even though dollars could no longer be exchanged for gold, they were now exchangeable for oil."
"The man that actually did demand Euro for his oil was Saddam Hussein in 2000. At first, his demand was met with ridicule, later with neglect, but as it became clearer that he meant business, political pressure was exerted to change his mind. When other countries, like Iran, wanted payment in other currencies, most notably Euro and Yen, the danger to the dollar was clear and present, and a punitive action was in order."
"Indeed, this is the case: two months after the United States invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food Program was terminated, the Iraqi Euro accounts were switched back to dollars, and oil was sold once again only for U.S. dollars. No longer could the world buy oil from Iraq with Euro."
"Muammar Gadhafi's decision to pursue gold standard and reject dollars for oil payments may have sealed his fate."
"Observers say implementing that vision would change the world power equation and threaten Western hegemony. In response, the United States and its NATO partners have determined “Gadhafi must go,” and assumed the role of judge, jury and executioner."
The Iranian government has finally developed the ultimate "nuclear" weapon that can swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire. That weapon is the Iranian Oil Bourse slated to open in March 2006. It will be based on a euro-oil-trading mechanism that naturally implies payment for oil in Euro.There is no denying that the former Deputy Prime Minister now anointed PM elect, has a wide network of influential crony buddies, top of which is another eX, ex-World Bank chief Paul "the wolf" Wolfowitz. Also among his eX buddies is fraudster ex-Vice President Al "reformasi" Gore.
Anwar, being the Anwar who would do anything to realize his cherished dream to be Prime Minister, incurred the wrath of the powerful American Jewish lobby B'nai B'rith International, with his 1Malaysia slogan being 1Israel antics in Parliament.
Probably, with that ending any hope of American support from his neoconnection for an "Arab Spring" in Malaysia.
And if the preservation of the US dollar, the execution of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein also supports the construct, is the true agenda for "Arab Spring" revolutions, what more with Anwar's open support for Hudud, hence his "Malaysian Spring".
Be that as it may, conspiracy theories or otherwise, Anwar Ibrahim "Malaysia Spring" in the words of Chandra Muzaffar, for us would be "an unmitigated disaster".