Malaysia, you have to be up-front. Or in short, make up your mind as to who you wish to support for the coveted prize of the United Nations (UN) seat?

During a visit to New Delhi last year, Premier Abdullah Ahmad Badawi endorsed India presumably on the grounds of her growing economic power and international profile.

No sooner than that came to be viewed as Malaysia's official stance, Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar chose to upend it all, by lending his support to Tokyo's equally trenchant bid.

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark they used to say; and that probably is due to who Malaysia really wants for the UN?

Consider how inappropriate the statement by the foreign minister is. At the moment, Japan is deeply embroiled in a bitter dispute with neighbouring China over the sensitive question of how history should be recorded. That has manifestly shown itself to take its toll, a very emotional toll on China which along with Malaysia had the misfortune to suffer their wartime atrocities.

As if that was not enough, Japan stoked the flames even further by allowing gas explorations in territories it holds in dispute with China.

Not isolated issues

Japan's relations with her neighbours and the recent defence pact she inked with the United States, are not issues that should be taken into isolation. They not only constitute to strategically effect the security playground in her neighbourhood, but lends to the little known open secret that she is as anxious as the United States is, in containing China.

Surely all this must be seen in perspective before Syed Hamid seeks any such endorsement for Japan.

True, Japan does play a great role in international affairs. But that's only because of American prodding and pressure, than what the world seeks of Tokyo, creating the impression that an American lackey cannot be of much help to the international community.

But also remember how slow Japan was in, coming to aid of the international coalition of allied forces in the 1991 Gulf War to oppose Saddam Hussein's invasion of oil-rich, Kuwait. Or for that matter, on the many times when she dithered in sending peacekeeping troops to trouble spots in the world. All these and many more do not augur well for a nation aspiring global participation and thereafter international leadership.

It is not cut and dried

Having endorsed both India and Japan, what Malaysia needs to understand is which of the two has lived up to its international obligations more transparently.

A new comer to the diffusive dynamics brought on by the collapse of the Cold War, India differs from Japan in that it does not have a past which it needs to be contrite about to its neighbours.

A founder member of the Non-Aligned movement (NAM) of which Malaysia and not Japan is part of, she has led Third World countries in addressing key global concerns like ending racism in South Africa, redressing income inequities, eradicating poverty and aiming to banish disease and ignorance from the world.

Not only has India proved that she enjoys the support of the world, but the tact and shrewd diplomacy she displays in defusing tensions with Pakistan contrasts sharply with a Japan that is perceived as obstinate, hard-headed and self-righteous in how it treats its neighbourhood.

That both the Chinese and Malaysian premiers have endorsed India for an expanded UN, should therefore make it easy as to who has the best credentials for an enlarged UN.

But are things really that cut and dried?

Perceptible difference

There is a perceptible difference between all the nations in the Security Council, with the exception of China, in that all of them are industrialised nations. India for the record is not or at least not yet; whereas Japan has long been one.

With an industrialised economy and without much worries to care for the welfare of the world, Japan can ably qualify based just on that criteria alone.

Secondly, for a long time during the Cold War, India was on the wrong side of the fence separating the East and West, which for the good of the world was won by the West led by the United States with key ally Japan in tow.

Then there are things like the national characteristics of nations that aspire those global leadership. Insular Japanese have always prided themselves on being unique and exclusive, allowing for little or sometimes no interaction for the foreigners in their midst in their home countries. India, whereas has traditionally been tolerant - some say because of the impulses of their Hindu religion, yet others say otherwise - and the diversity of her country makes a microcosm of the world she wants to represent.

In the final call, it all sums to a loose translation of what British philosopher Bertrand Russell once said about leadership. Bad leadership, according to Russell simply does not exist. Bad leadership is something which is a logical impossibility and for it to come about, the voters would have to be worse off, to pick that leadership.

So, be circumspect with who you want for the UN, Malaysia. Pick somebody you are sure of knowing, and leading the world and shows the wherewithal to understand the complexities of the world.

JAYA PRAKASH lectures journalism in Singapore.