After critically examining the role Asean, Professor Dr Johan Saravanamutthu shares his observations on the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) in a world where the United States is said to be unilateralist and other powers like Europe, China and India are believed to be capable of playing the role of counterweight.

Malaysiakini: Malaysia is now the chair of NAM. The organisation was a product or relic of the Cold War when the world was politically, economically, socially and militarily divided into two camps and small countries could band together in NAM and play balancing games. How relevant and effective is NAM now that the world has entered into a unipolar moment?

Johan: Nonalignment can still be relevant in specific contexts as I stated above. Also, there is no reason for the movement not to evolve. Next year we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Bandung conference, a progenitor of Third World movements. Nonalignment needs to re-invent itself and defined itself as a countervailing force against US unilateralism and other forms of unilateralism. For me, it's not truly a "unipolar moment" as you put it but a push by neo-conservatives in the US to re-establish a New American Century after Henry Luce who at the end of the Second World War called for an "American Century".

While the US is clearly the sole superpower and world hegemon, the instituting of a world empire remains elusive and will meet up with resistance. Europe, Asean, China and India can play countervailing roles to the US.

For Malaysia to be an effective chair of NAM, it must take cognisance of all the above.

Malaysia is also now the chair of the (OIC) but OIC, like Asean or NAM, also seems to be divided on many issues according to the separately self-defined national interests of Muslim-majority states. How relevant and effective is OIC now that the world has entered into a unipolar moment and the Middle East is in a process of turbulent transformation that may last for the next 20 to 30 years?

I would give a similar response as above. However, in this question, you're really raising the issue (spectre?) of political Islam. I see political Islam now deeply divided by conservatism and modernism. I do hope modernism will prevail. The militant expression of political Islam (Al-Qaeda and other fundamentalist groups) is fueled as we all know by the stark economic and political prevalent injustices in Muslim regions. The OIC is powerless and toothless in dealing with these and the Muslim world is itself divided politically. A major resolution of issues of political Islam must come with resolving the primary conflict and injustice meted out to the Palestinian people.

We should devote energies to resolving this problem first and foremost. In my view, modernisation and economic development and its corollary, democratisation, will be the handmaidens of change in Muslim regions in the future. The Middle East is one of the most undemocratic regions in the world. This has to change. In issues pertaining to political Islam, Indonesia and Malaysia can and must provide enlightened leadership to the Muslim world.

The US-led war against the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq has shown that not even the combined opposition of the Franco-German Europe, Russia, China, NAM, OIC and the United Nations could change the Anglo-American decision to commence military operations. Does it, or does it not, also show, albeit incidentally, that former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad's strategic paradigm in international relations and balance of power has also failed?

This is the unilateralism development in world politics, we alluded to earlier. We should note that there was resistance to the Anglo-US decision and there still is. Old-style balancing tactics can work to a point. However, isolating the US, and this also happened in the Vietnam War, and raising public opinion on the subject, are equally effective tactics. The pity and shame is the war in Iraq has already taken 100,000 lives and in Vietnam two million perished before the US pulled out. As far as I can tell, Mahathir's so-called paradigm is irrelevant here.

In retrospect, while Mahathir was hailed by a school of opinion to be a vocal non-Western politician in international affairs, there is another school that opines that under his 'adventurist' leadership, Malaysia had over-committed its economic resources and political energy to international diplomatic activities or objectives that are excessively rhetorical and purely ideational, and do not bring tangible and positive benefits to Malaysia.

Mahathir's bark was worst than his bite. I've written in academic journals that he was a true "iconoclast" in his ideas and advocacy of issues. In practice however, he seldom really crosses swords with the likes of the US. One just has to recall that the Malaysian government under him in 1991 did not vote in the Security Council against the senior Bush's blitz on Iraq. The least Malaysia could have done was to abstain. He did however take on smaller hegemons like Britain buy British last policy in the 80s. His pet ideas of Antartica as a heritage of mankind is harmless and supportable while the propounding of "Asian" values was superficial and ultimately antithetical of his own push for Malaysia become a developed, liberal state.

Do you think that Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi would change Malaysia's foreign policy and conduct of international relations substantively (not only in personality or leadership styles) despite his seeming and public deference to Mahathir, his strategic paradigm and political as well as ideological legacies?

I have said in a recent presentation to a Singapore audience that there is no substantial change in Abdullah's foreign policy. It is rather a change of style but that in itself can be important We must not forget he was foreign minister for many years and has by that token imbibed much of the substantive aspects of past policies.

Here's a long quote from my Singapore presentation: In a previous writing, this writer has referred to the "iconoclasm" of Mahathir which referred to his penchant for "the debunking of established beliefs and ideas about politics". I suggested further that this led in Mahathir's foreign policy to "(a) genuine critique of existing inequitable relations between rich and poor countries, a disdain for 'Western' democracy, and persistent attempts to promote a modernist Islamic perspective in foreign policy."

The question that arises is to what extent Abdullah would follow such a style or even modify the iconoclastic substance of Mahathir's policies, especially in Malaysia's relations with certain countries. My reading is that there has already been a change in style but not much by way of the substance of policies except perhaps in bilateral policies. We have already discussed the shift in domestic policy where a change in political climate has allowed Abdullah to effect some real changes. However in foreign relations much of the substantive aspects of policy have firmly been laid down rather in Mahathir's time. One should also not forget that Abdullah had for many years been a foreign minister himself in the Mahathir cabinet.

This notwithstanding, since assuming the helm of leadership, Abdullah has introduced palpably a much softer style of dealing the outside world and, most importantly, a softer version of a modernist and moderate Islam known by the term his government coined, "Islam Hadhari" or "civilizational Islam". This concept of Islam has been the hallmark of his orientation towards the Western world and especially in the face of American-led "global war against terrorism". It must have been calculated by Abdullah's advisors that Malaysia as leader of the OIC and NAM, must project such an image in order to optimise not just the objectives of these umbrella organizations but also its own national interests.

If PM Abdullah Ahmad Badawi intends to substantively reform Malaysia's foreign policy and conduct of international relations, what would be the obstacles or stumbling blocks? What forces could be mobilised in Malaysia to balance against or overcome the obstacles and stumbling blocks?

I don't believe there needs to be too much reform as such in the substantive thrusts of policy; it's rather to make them more effective and to go beyond posturing (which Mahathir was fond of) and bring about real results. These are some of the things Abdullah says he wants to do vis--vis Asean, viz:

1) Prepare the groundwork or building blocks for the nucleus of the Asean Community idea;

2) Strengthening Asean external relations especially with respect to the Asean Plus Three relationship;

3) Work towards an Asean Charter which would confer upon it an "international legal personality"

If he can turn these objectives to reality, Abdullah should deserve kudos. I made the point earlier that Asean must become a rules-based community. I assume Abdullah means this by the phrase "international legal personality".

His stumbling blocks will be conservative elements within his own party and the push and pulls of Asean and Muslim and UMNO politics as well as favouring business groups in Malaysia and outside. This could detract him from taking principled stands and implementing change. Externally, he should resist playing up to expediency and being nice to the US and the big majors at the cost of principles and stated goals of foreign policy.

M'sian foreign policy a critical exploration (Part 1)

JAMES WONG WING ON is chief analyst of Strategic Analysis Malaysia. He is a former DAP member of Parliament for Kampar (1990-1995) and a former columnist for the Sin Chew Jit Poh Chinese daily (now Sin Chew Daily). He read political science and economics at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.