|
Koleksi Khas Digital
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
| Abstract : |
| THE two-week ceasefire between the United States and Iran, agreed on the evening of April 7, presents a moment of restraint.
Both countries were also in Islamabad over the weekend for talks on ending the war, but they failed to reach an agreement.
The Iranian delegation was led by Speaker of Parliament Mohammad Ghalibaf and the US by Vice-President JD Vance.
Previously, at the Kuala Lumpur-Ankara Dialogue, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim had reminded participants that giving peace a chance was not a mere mantra, nor could peace be handed on a platter.
"It must be built, deliberately and patiently, with resolve, with courage, and with an unwavering commitment to justice and human dignity," he said.
Experience counsels caution. Ceasefires have on many occasions served less as pathways to resolution than as brief interludes in a longer cycle of contestation.
For the Islamabad peace talks, Iran reportedly forwarded a 10-point proposal, although the details have not been formally unveiled.
The full terms of the US proposal have also not been released, although there were reports of a 15-point plan previously.
Thus, comparisons of the two sides' positions rely on partial disclosures and diplomatic briefings. Still, even these snapshots are revealing.
Over the noise of broadcast analysts and reporters, giving blow by blow accounts, a comparison compiled by the Council on Foreign Relations has highlighted the scale of divergence.
Iran is reported to insist on sovereign control over the Strait of Hormuz, the preservation of its nuclear programme in some form, and the lifting of sanctions.
The US, by contrast, is pushing for the reopening of the strait, constraints on Iran's nuclear activities, limits on its military capabilities, and an end to support for regional proxies.
These are enormous differences that make for seemingly insurmountable barriers on the path to negotiating a resolution.
Complicating matters is the broader regional theatre.
Israeli aggression in Lebanon has continued unabated, placing the Iran-US ceasefire under severe strain.
It was previously reported Tel Aviv and Beirut would hold peace talks in the US this week, but that has since been dismissed by the Israelis.
This only serves to reinforce Washington's evident inability, or unwillingness, to meaningfully restrain Israel's military operations, raising questions about both its leverage and intent.
Taken together, these developments underscore a central reality: the Middle East conflict cannot be neatly contained within a bilateral frame.
Its dynamics are inherently regional and its stabilisation depends on factors beyond Washington and Teheran alone.
The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world's most critical chokepoints, with roughly 20 per cent of global crude oil passing through it each day.
Heightened risks have already introduced volatility into global markets, with oil prices responding to both actual supply concerns and expectations of interruption.
Beyond oil, around one-fifth of global liquefied natural gas trade also transits the strait, linking developments in the Gulf region directly to electricity generation and industrial output across Asia and beyond.
INFLATIONARY PRESSURES
For energy-importing economies, these dynamics spell higher input costs and increased vulnerability to external shocks.
The effects are not confined to energy markets but translate into inflationary pressures across the broader economy.
Rising fuel costs feed directly into transportation and logistics, increasing the cost of moving goods across borders and within domestic markets. Production and manufacturing costs, too, begin to rise, particularly in energy-intensive industries.
The conflict is increasing food insecurity risks, especially for import-dependent economies as the increased cost of fertilisers raises the cost of crop production. Livestock systems are also impacted where rising prices of animal feed pile on the cost of meat and poultry.
The implication is clear: cost pressures originating in energy markets do not remain contained, but are transmitted progressively through agricultural, livestock and food systems.
For developing economies, where food and fuel constitute a significant share of household expenditure, the impact is particularly acute. What might appear as a marginal increase at the global level can bite into the purchasing power of households, with wider social and fiscal implications.
Governments may come under pressure to cushion these effects, including through subsidies or other fiscal measures, even as many face already constrained fiscal space.
Thus, what begins as a geopolitical shock becomes a domestic policy challenge, forcing difficult trade-offs between fiscal sustainability and social protection.
There are deeper structural consequences as well. Labour markets across parts of West Asia are already under strain from instability and displacement.
Prolonged conflict can exacerbate these pressures, discouraging investment, accelerating outward migration, and delaying reconstruction.
Over time, this risks entrenching a cycle in which economic fragility and insecurity reinforce one another.
The human cost is equally significant, if not more. Conflict disrupts access to education, healthcare and livelihoods, while generating displacement at scale.
Estimates from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees suggest that millions have already been displaced in the course of the war. The long-term consequence is an erosion of human capital that extends well beyond the duration of the conflict itself.
The psychological dimension is no less consequential where exposure to conflict, displacement and insecurity is associated with elevated risks of anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress.
Environmental pressures are similarly amplified as energy insecurity impedes the transition to cleaner energy while diverting political attention and financial resources away from climate mitigation and adaptation efforts.
Taken together, these dynamics point to a broader conclusion. The costs of the conflict are not confined to the battlefield, nor are they limited to the immediate parties involved. They are diffuse, cumulative and global.
IMPORTANCE OF RESILIENCE
For small trading nations such as Malaysia and similar economies, this presents a particular challenge.
These economies, deeply integrated into global trade and energy systems, have limited influence on the trajectory of major power conflicts. They are, in effect, exposed to the consequences without shaping the causes.
This asymmetry underscores the importance of resilience. This is not a mere situational crisis but one with deep implications.
Diversifying energy sources, strengthening food security frameworks, enhancing supply chain robustness and maintaining fiscal discipline become not just economic priorities, but also strategic imperatives.
In this vein, warning that a prolonged conflict will warrant a holistic review of the nation's growth projections and major undertakings, Anwar initiated a host of high-level measures to deal with the crisis.
Needless to say, the ultimate responses cannot be merely ad hoc-driven but must be strategically calculated for the long haul.
At the same time, the role of diplomacy cannot be overstated. Far from being merely normative, advocacy for de-escalation is grounded in economic self-interest. The longer the conflict persists, the more entrenched its effects become, and the more difficult they are to reverse.
On the peace talks, while current indications suggest that the underlying differences remain substantial, and that the path to resolution is clouded in uncertainty, the optimist in me remains hopeful that the ceasefire may yet hold, and that negotiations, even if not entirely fruitful, may still narrow the chasm between the parties.
"Give peace a chance" is not merely a slogan from that John Lennon anti-war anthem, but a collective effort with the conviction that "we will work it out" to take us on the path of peace, stability and a sustainable future. |
| This material may be protected under Copyright Act which governs the making of photocopies or reproductions of copyrighted materials. You may use the digitized material for private study, scholarship, or research. |