Dr Mahathir Mohamad's sweeping outburst against the "European race " (as if there is one such monolithic entity or identity) and Western civilisation in the opening speech of the Umno assembly last week was, and still is, a rude shock to many in Malaysia and around the world.

While it is famously or infamously well-known for a long time that Mahathir has never like the West, the Mugabe-like rhetoric attack last week still came as a surprise because in recent months, he seems to be a very energetic saleman of the Euro.

The Malaysian media was also giving the strong impression that while in France attending the G8 Summit, he had already reconciled with US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Of course, French President Chirac has always been seen to be his - as well as, of course, Saddam Hussein's - good friend.

How to explain the sudden U-turn of Mahathir in attacking friends and foes - except, of course, Saddam Hussein and Robert Mugabe - in such sweeping and outrageous terms?

Final expression

Conventional wisdom, premised upon personality psychology, has it that it was the ultimate and final expression of what is long hidden in the sub-consciousness, during a time of tremendous stress and tension.

A more impersonal and political explanation is that the ethno-nationalist attempts to rebuild and fortify a "siege mentality" among Malays and Malaysians so that they would continue to support the ruling coalition in the coming general election "to protect the country from external threats."

In the process, those who oppose the ruling coalition or support the opposition could be demonised as "traitors", "CIA agents" or "European Trojan House".

Workers who demand for better working conditions and higher wages, or non-governmental organisations that champion environmental protection, human rights and democracy could also be attacked as being "instigated" by "foreign forces".

At a time when the support of both the Muslim/Malay majority and the ethnic minorities like Chinese and Indians are not automatically assured, the theme foreign "threats" and "humiliation" is probably seen as the most effective bogey.

These two theories are not mutually exclusive. In fact, it could be argued that in a nation where not many people read quality books on the history of the world or Europe like JM Robert's History of the world (London, Helicon, 1992) or Norman Davies' Europe - A history (Oxford, OUP, 1996), Mahathir himself is The Book.

But, it seems that there is another dimension to the almost xenophobic outburst.

Clash of civilisation

Before the outbreak of the war against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, Mahathir was widely perceived to be a staunch supporter of Europe which is said to be a countervailing power to US 'hegemonism' and 'unilateralism'.

He was full of praises of 'Europe', especially France, Germany, Belgium and Russia which seemed to be so heroically peace-loving.

Also, he thought that the whole Islamic world, high and low, would rise up in unison against the "White Christian Anglo-American imperialism".

It is in public record that Mahathir saw, or believed, described or wanted the war against the Saddam regime to be "a clash of civilisation" between the "Christian West" and the rest.

In addition, there was North Korea in this part of the world attempting, at least in shrill rhetoric and pompous military parades, open a second front in the East, against Anglo-American 'imperialism'. Physically behind North Korea is China which was also opposed to the then impending war.

Moreover, apparently impressed by media reports, both at home or abroad, that millions of people turned out in the streets of Western cities to oppose the impending war, the well-known (famous or infamous) critics of Anglo-American 'colonialism' and 'imperialism' was 'hopeful'.

Besides calling for the use of oil as a "weapon" and equating the multinational victims of terrorism in Washington DC, New York and Bali with "collateral damage", Mahathir also publicly "predicted" or actually hoped that a "Third World War" would happened if and when the war broke out.

Everything seemed so reminiscent of the Second World War when Germany and Italy in the West and Japan in the East formed the Axis Powers to attempt to challenge the status quo of the world, and promised to 'liberate' the 'coloured peoples' from colonial subjugation, exploitation and humiliation.

Changes neglected

While it is true that as far as the core of the Anglo-American alliance comprising of the US, Britain and Australia has not changed much since those days, there are many other changes in the world that Mahathir seemed to have neglected in his strategic calculations.

In the war against the Saddam regime in Iraq, the Anglo-American core was firmly supported by most of the major powers in Asia as well as Malaysia's strategic neighbours, such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines, Singapore and, to a certain extent, Thailand.

Japan, South Korea and Thailand are traditional and typical Asian, not European, nation-states. Also, while Japan and South Korea were once envisioned by Mahathir in his "Asean + 3" scheme to be countervailing powers against what he perceives to be Anglo-American economic 'imperialism', the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore are founding members of Asean.

There was no uprising or second front in Asia, not even from the bellicose North Korea and the always 'pragmatic and flexible' post-Mao China. Besides the powerful Japan-US Security Alliance (JASA) and the US-Australian Security Alliance (Anzus), there is also the multi-services US Pacific Command (Pacom) in Hawaii.

In any case, the US and its global allies are believed to be capable of fighting simultaneously in two theatres of war to restore peace and order, as they were in the Second World War in Europe as well as the Far East.

In Europe, Mahathir's anti-war governmental friends are not as effectively numerous as the volume of voices in the media suggests. Like it or not, there were more pro-war governments in Europe than the anti-war ones.

For example, while Spain and Portugal supported the United States and Britain diplomatically, Poland assigned combat troops to join the Anglo-American-Australian forces. The Czech Republic and Slovakia, among others, sent forces specialising in defence against chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear warfare to assist Iraq's neighbours, especially Kuwait.

Seaports and airfields in Spain, Portugal, Italy and even Germany were opened for the transformation and logistical support for the Allied troops. The most peaceful country in Europe, Sweden, among others, expelled Iraqi diplomats in a show of moral support for the liberation of Iraq.

Know better

Of course, Muslim states like Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan supported the war either actively or discreetly.

The governments of these Muslim states know the intention and behaviour of the Saddam Hussein regime much better than Mahathir.

The major combat operation was declared over about three weeks after the multi-directional and multi-dimensional swarming strikes against Baghdad from Kuwait, the Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea and Persian Gulf.

Major anti-war nations like France, Germany, Belgium, Russia and China were more mature and prudent than Mahathir had probably expected or calculated. Their opposition was only diplomatic, not military. There was no outbreak of a "Third World War".

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Nato) is still around, and debating, not fighting, over some differences, while the US is realigning its forces globally, including Southeast Asia, Northeast Asia and Southwest Pacific, to face a changed world and be prepared for asymetrical threats and a new kind of warfare.

Mahathir has therefore been proven and shown very wrong in all his strategic calculations and expectations. Most likely, this breeds frustration and bitterness.

And despite the trans-Atlantic rife over Iraq, the West and the non-autocratic portion of the East (like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan) are still united in defence of the values of human rights, rule of law and democratic governance within national territories, like in the case of Burma.

Lonely and isolated

Mahathir and the Umno regime most probably feel lonely, increasingly isolated and alienated in the mainstream of the international community. Loneliness, isolation and alienation, like frustration and bitterness, breeds fear and anxiety.

For a man who has devoted almost all his political life in strategising how to make the rest united to go against the West, this is certainly the ultimate blow.

Three questions that are of interest to the future are worth pondering:

One, will his successor, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi inherit the moribund worldview, ideology and 'grand' strategy for the new world?

Two, if Abdullah does inherit and defend the legacies, will he have the willpower, strength of the mind and sense of self-importance to continue to defy the new reality in the world?

Third, if he decides to abandon the moribund ideas of the world, how would Mahathir and his ideological supporters react to him, or will he be able to gather enough influences and powers to defeat the reactionaries (if he is not himself a reactionary in substance)?

Related to these near future possibilities is the question of how the die-hard loyalists of Mahathir re-group in institutions like the official media, bureaucracy, think-tanks and NGOs in order to defend the old order of ideas, influences and powers.

Mahathir the person will almost certainly retire in October, but Mahathirism the ideas and influences may still be around, alive and kicking, for some years to come.

Contrary to the expectation of some politics-fatigued diplomats, analysts, journalists and writers, there is no end to politics in Malaysia or anywhere else in the world. The contests of ideas, influences and powers in human society is never-ending.