The recent acrimonious war of words between Malaysia and Singapore, initiated by the former, over water agreements and a tiny island has strained the relations between the close neighbours.
To make sense of it, one must look back in history as these unedifying spats, though disturbing to their citizens and investors alike, are not unique to these two neighbours with close links.
It is supreme irony that the world is replete with historical precedents of nations, especially those bound by traditional, ethnic, cultural, or religious ties, who had been at each other's throats or were disenchanted with one another for differing reasons.
We have seen how turbulent relations had, over time, led to wars or violent clashes between Arabs and Jews, and between English and Irish, Indians and Pakistanis and, more recently, Serbs and Bosnians.
At the lighter end of the scale, there isn't much love lost between Japanese and Koreans, Americans and Europeans, English and French and Thais and Cambodians. Malaysia and Singapore could, perhaps, now fall within this group.
What are some of the compelling factors that have brought about these ugly spectacles between countries？ Are there no panaceas that would enable them to co-exist peacefully？
Judging from past happenings, the following factors do stand out：
Firstly, The close bonds that two nations share are no guarantee that they will always get on famously. In actual fact, the risks of conflicts arising are, perhaps, even higher. This is often true when one neighbour is highly successful and the other not.
Such disparity in national fortunes can, and often does, create envy and resentment, especially if the former is perceived as being unhelpful or supercilious in its treatment of the other.
Secondly, since time immemorial, serious territorial disputes, usually legacies of history, have continued to be one of the most common causes of war or discord between the protagonists. Unless and until such a dispute is resolved through a mutually acceptable settlement, and not one imposed by a third party, genuine rapproachment between the parties is likely to elude them.
Thirdly, throughout the ages, wars had erupted in the name of religion to suit the combatants' own selfish political or military objectives, despite the fact that these would negate the fundamental tenet of that particular faith.
Unfortunately, such misuse of religion had happened time and again and this problem remains today.
Fourthly, relentless racial hatred has also figured prominently in armed conflicts, with devastating losses in innocent lives and untold human sufferings.
The lessons that history has taught us are that peace is sacrosanct and every nation must do its utmost to uphold it. However, the unpredictability of the human mind makes it almost impossible to predict what two antagonistic nations might do in certain adverse circumstances.
On the other hand, good neighbourliness, once destroyed, is difficult to be restored fully except in the fullness of time or through the indefatigable statesmanship of sagacious leaders, as well as the will of the people on both sides.
Be that as it may, nothing will more swiftly unite two previous foes in a common front if they are threatened by a potential enemy perceived to be more dangerous than their erstwhile opponent.
This was how the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation （NATO） came into being after World War II, aimed at safeguarding Western European countries from being swallowed up militarily by the mighty Soviet Union.
Now that the Soviet Union is dead and buried, and Russia is no longer a military threat to the West, the cohesiveness of NATO is being put to a formidable test pending the looming American and British led war against Iraq.
（The writer is a retired lawyer.）
由馬來西亞挑起,新馬兩國對于水供和一個小島主權(quán)問題的激烈爭論,使兩國關(guān)系陷入僵局。
要了解這些毫無意義,對兩地人民和投資者造成困惑的爭執(zhí),得從歷史經(jīng)驗里尋找線索。這種情形并不是只發(fā)生在關(guān)系密切的國家之間。
歷多的是國與國之間不能容忍、相互斗爭的例子,尤其是那些在傳統(tǒng)、種族、文化和宗教上關(guān)系緊密的國家。
長期動蕩不安的關(guān)系,可以演變成暴力沖突甚至戰(zhàn)爭。阿拉伯人和*人、英國人和愛爾蘭人、印度人和巴基斯坦人、塞爾維亞人和波斯尼亞人的糾紛,是有目共睹的例子。
一些國家則只是彼此厭惡,日本人和韓國人、美國人和歐洲人、英國人和法國人、泰國人和柬埔寨人的關(guān)系就是例子。這大致是新馬關(guān)系目前的寫照。
是什么原因造成國與國之間的關(guān)系惡劣？有沒有讓它們和平共處的辦法？
歷史經(jīng)驗為我們提供了一些值得注意的因素。
第一、國與國之間的緊密關(guān)系并不能保證它們永遠(yuǎn)會和諧共處。實際的情形可能適得其反,雙方?jīng)_突的危險性可能更高。在其中一個國家迅速成長,它的鄰居卻停滯不前的時候,情形更是如此。兩國之間的發(fā)展差距,往往會導(dǎo)致妒忌和怨恨的心理,尤其是當(dāng)前者被視為高傲自大和不愿意幫助后者。
第二、由于歷史問題所帶來的嚴(yán)重領(lǐng)土爭執(zhí),一直是國與國之間關(guān)系鬧僵和開戰(zhàn)的原因之一。只有通過雙方都能接受的解決方案,而不是第三者強(qiáng)加于它們的裁決,雙方才有望重歸于好。
第三、以宗教為名,實際上是為了自私的軍事和政治利益的戰(zhàn)爭,在歷層出不窮。雖然戰(zhàn)爭違反了這些宗教的教義,不幸的是這種濫用宗教的作法,到今天還不時發(fā)生。
第四、種族之間的仇恨也是武力沖突的主要原因,這往往造成嚴(yán)重的人命傷亡和給人們帶來苦難。
歷史告訴我們和平是神圣不可侵犯的,每個國家都應(yīng)該盡全力維護(hù)。但是,兩個互不相容的國家在某些敵對的情況下會作出什么反應(yīng),卻不是我們所能夠預(yù)測的。
睦鄰的精神一旦被摧毀便很難修復(fù)。這需要長時間的努力、賢明領(lǐng)袖的主導(dǎo)和雙方人民的意愿。
能夠迅速使敵對雙方連成一氣的,是當(dāng)雙方都感受到一個潛在敵人的威脅,而這個敵人又比它們其中任何一方更具危險性。
北大西洋公約組織就是在這樣的情況下,在第二次世界大戰(zhàn)后成立,目的是防止西歐國家受到軍力強(qiáng)大的蘇聯(lián)的并吞。
蘇聯(lián)已經(jīng)瓦解,俄國也沒有能力對西方造成軍事威脅。美國和英國正積極準(zhǔn)備攻打伊拉克,北約的團(tuán)結(jié)卻在這個時候面對了巨大的挑戰(zhàn)。
To make sense of it, one must look back in history as these unedifying spats, though disturbing to their citizens and investors alike, are not unique to these two neighbours with close links.
It is supreme irony that the world is replete with historical precedents of nations, especially those bound by traditional, ethnic, cultural, or religious ties, who had been at each other's throats or were disenchanted with one another for differing reasons.
We have seen how turbulent relations had, over time, led to wars or violent clashes between Arabs and Jews, and between English and Irish, Indians and Pakistanis and, more recently, Serbs and Bosnians.
At the lighter end of the scale, there isn't much love lost between Japanese and Koreans, Americans and Europeans, English and French and Thais and Cambodians. Malaysia and Singapore could, perhaps, now fall within this group.
What are some of the compelling factors that have brought about these ugly spectacles between countries？ Are there no panaceas that would enable them to co-exist peacefully？
Judging from past happenings, the following factors do stand out：
Firstly, The close bonds that two nations share are no guarantee that they will always get on famously. In actual fact, the risks of conflicts arising are, perhaps, even higher. This is often true when one neighbour is highly successful and the other not.
Such disparity in national fortunes can, and often does, create envy and resentment, especially if the former is perceived as being unhelpful or supercilious in its treatment of the other.
Secondly, since time immemorial, serious territorial disputes, usually legacies of history, have continued to be one of the most common causes of war or discord between the protagonists. Unless and until such a dispute is resolved through a mutually acceptable settlement, and not one imposed by a third party, genuine rapproachment between the parties is likely to elude them.
Thirdly, throughout the ages, wars had erupted in the name of religion to suit the combatants' own selfish political or military objectives, despite the fact that these would negate the fundamental tenet of that particular faith.
Unfortunately, such misuse of religion had happened time and again and this problem remains today.
Fourthly, relentless racial hatred has also figured prominently in armed conflicts, with devastating losses in innocent lives and untold human sufferings.
The lessons that history has taught us are that peace is sacrosanct and every nation must do its utmost to uphold it. However, the unpredictability of the human mind makes it almost impossible to predict what two antagonistic nations might do in certain adverse circumstances.
On the other hand, good neighbourliness, once destroyed, is difficult to be restored fully except in the fullness of time or through the indefatigable statesmanship of sagacious leaders, as well as the will of the people on both sides.
Be that as it may, nothing will more swiftly unite two previous foes in a common front if they are threatened by a potential enemy perceived to be more dangerous than their erstwhile opponent.
This was how the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation （NATO） came into being after World War II, aimed at safeguarding Western European countries from being swallowed up militarily by the mighty Soviet Union.
Now that the Soviet Union is dead and buried, and Russia is no longer a military threat to the West, the cohesiveness of NATO is being put to a formidable test pending the looming American and British led war against Iraq.
（The writer is a retired lawyer.）
由馬來西亞挑起,新馬兩國對于水供和一個小島主權(quán)問題的激烈爭論,使兩國關(guān)系陷入僵局。
要了解這些毫無意義,對兩地人民和投資者造成困惑的爭執(zhí),得從歷史經(jīng)驗里尋找線索。這種情形并不是只發(fā)生在關(guān)系密切的國家之間。
歷多的是國與國之間不能容忍、相互斗爭的例子,尤其是那些在傳統(tǒng)、種族、文化和宗教上關(guān)系緊密的國家。
長期動蕩不安的關(guān)系,可以演變成暴力沖突甚至戰(zhàn)爭。阿拉伯人和*人、英國人和愛爾蘭人、印度人和巴基斯坦人、塞爾維亞人和波斯尼亞人的糾紛,是有目共睹的例子。
一些國家則只是彼此厭惡,日本人和韓國人、美國人和歐洲人、英國人和法國人、泰國人和柬埔寨人的關(guān)系就是例子。這大致是新馬關(guān)系目前的寫照。
是什么原因造成國與國之間的關(guān)系惡劣？有沒有讓它們和平共處的辦法？
歷史經(jīng)驗為我們提供了一些值得注意的因素。
第一、國與國之間的緊密關(guān)系并不能保證它們永遠(yuǎn)會和諧共處。實際的情形可能適得其反,雙方?jīng)_突的危險性可能更高。在其中一個國家迅速成長,它的鄰居卻停滯不前的時候,情形更是如此。兩國之間的發(fā)展差距,往往會導(dǎo)致妒忌和怨恨的心理,尤其是當(dāng)前者被視為高傲自大和不愿意幫助后者。
第二、由于歷史問題所帶來的嚴(yán)重領(lǐng)土爭執(zhí),一直是國與國之間關(guān)系鬧僵和開戰(zhàn)的原因之一。只有通過雙方都能接受的解決方案,而不是第三者強(qiáng)加于它們的裁決,雙方才有望重歸于好。
第三、以宗教為名,實際上是為了自私的軍事和政治利益的戰(zhàn)爭,在歷層出不窮。雖然戰(zhàn)爭違反了這些宗教的教義,不幸的是這種濫用宗教的作法,到今天還不時發(fā)生。
第四、種族之間的仇恨也是武力沖突的主要原因,這往往造成嚴(yán)重的人命傷亡和給人們帶來苦難。
歷史告訴我們和平是神圣不可侵犯的,每個國家都應(yīng)該盡全力維護(hù)。但是,兩個互不相容的國家在某些敵對的情況下會作出什么反應(yīng),卻不是我們所能夠預(yù)測的。
睦鄰的精神一旦被摧毀便很難修復(fù)。這需要長時間的努力、賢明領(lǐng)袖的主導(dǎo)和雙方人民的意愿。
能夠迅速使敵對雙方連成一氣的,是當(dāng)雙方都感受到一個潛在敵人的威脅,而這個敵人又比它們其中任何一方更具危險性。
北大西洋公約組織就是在這樣的情況下,在第二次世界大戰(zhàn)后成立,目的是防止西歐國家受到軍力強(qiáng)大的蘇聯(lián)的并吞。
蘇聯(lián)已經(jīng)瓦解,俄國也沒有能力對西方造成軍事威脅。美國和英國正積極準(zhǔn)備攻打伊拉克,北約的團(tuán)結(jié)卻在這個時候面對了巨大的挑戰(zhàn)。