FOREIGN POLICY IN MALAYSIA

The Foreign Policy in Malaysia went through the process of evolution since the country
achieved independence in 1957, with change and continuity. Beginning with Tunku Abdul
Rahman, the Prime Minister had been central in the formulation and decision making of the
foreign policy, though this should not ignore or exclude the role of the Foreign Minister, foreign
policy institutions, bureaucracies and other non-state actors in influencing and shaping the
foreign policy. The concepts and theories of international politics such as realism, neo realism,
idealism, constructivism and the English School had been taken into account to analyse the
national interest and the foreign policy (Mohamad,2004).
During Tun Dr. Mahathir era, national interest was the fundamental driver of the foreign
policy of the country, which was intertwined with the goals and aspirations of the nation to meet
the domestic demands as well as the influence of the external environment. Vision 2020 was also
a significant factor that underscored her vision to achieve a developed nation status (Mohamad,
2011). The objectives of the vision were for national identity, national integration, to be a selfconfident nation whilst at the same time maintaining the equilibrium between the material and
spiritual needs of the society, in line with the security, political, economic and societal needs and
wants of the nation.
Tun Dr. Mahathir was a great believer of the need for a sound economic policy in order to
be successful nation and gained the respect of other nations. This explained the economic
orientation of the foreign policy of Malaysia during his period. The first shift of the foreign
policy was moving from political focus to the economic (Mohamad, 2004). The public policy of
Malaysia was therefore directed towards achieving this goal. Malaysia targeted for economic
growth and development to improve the quality of lives of the citizens. The Vision was set to
build a self-confidence Malaysian nation according to its own mould. Even democracy and
human rights were embraced but subject only to them being consistent to its local culture and
conditions.

Tun Dr. Mahathir was one of the leaders of the developing world that advocated for a
strong government and leadership. He liked to suggest that the success of South Korea and
Taiwan were due to the strong government and leadership (Mohamad,2011). Hence he was a
passionate advocate of strong leadership. Due to this advocacy many Western countries
considered Tun Dr. Mahathir a dictatorial and authoritarian. In my view Tun Mahathir did act
with a strong hand and grip on the countrys affairs but this was done for sustaining political
stability, peace and security. In a way he did not act differently from previous Prime Ministers
except that his public policy shifts were seen as radical and he took a more nationalistic,
assertive and profiled foreign policy.
.
Tun Dr. Mahathir underlined the role and identification of Malaysia with the South,
Islamic Ummah and ASEAN as its closest neighbours in accordance with her national interest.
The relationship with China, Japan and Korea became active due to the political, economic
growth and development dictates which required the country to move away from the traditional
relationships once the west (Mohamad,2011). Tun Dr. Mahathir was impressed and convinced
these were something learning from the work ethics of Japan and South Korea. This was in his
belief the way forward for Malaysia. Malaysia gained tremendous benefits from these
associations and the new approaches of its economic policies.
In this regard the foreign policy of Malaysia between 1981-2003 could be said to be
guided by Tun Mahathirs political ideology and belief. Malaysia exercised independence,
nationalism, assertiveness and was seen profiled in its diplomacy in international relations. For
this reason Malaysia identified herself to the small and developing countries, ASEAN and the
Islamic Ummah. Tun Dr. Mahathir believed the international order was unjust and unfair to the
developing, Islamic and third world countries thus the national interest and foreign policy were
aligned to them.

Tun Dr. Mahathir was plain speaking in expressing his views that the international order
practiced double standards, selectivity, and hypocrisy as to him the system was mainly aligned to
the interests of major Western powers (Mohamad, 2011). Tun Dr. Mahathir read the international
politics of the west as moving to own hegemony and domination of the developing world. In this
Tun Dr. Mahathir applied his own norms and ethical values based on his experience and
interpretation of history to the national interest and foreign policy of Malaysia. He was at times
an idealist who wanted to change the global order.
As a very strong trading nation the economy of Malaysia was one of the most globalised.
Tun Dr. Mahathir criticised globalisation because of the negative impacts of globalisation on the
small and developing countries. It was during his era that Malaysia achieved credible economic
growth and was in the top twenty of the worlds trading nation (Mohamad,2004). For Tun Dr.
Mahathir though neo-colonialism was real and a methodology adopted by Western powers to
dominate the world economy and international politics, in short according to recolonize in a
different form. Malaysia disliked what she consider the imbalanced and disequilibrium that
persisted in the international system which caused the unjust and unfair treatment of the
countries of the South, Islamic Ummah and even in the broader perspective ASEAN.
Tun Dr. Mahathir argued there could not be fair competition in the absence of a level
playing field. At the core of the foreign policy of Malaysia was the need to change the
international system, the rejection of hegemony and refusal to accept domination by the West.
Malaysia advocated for the right of every nation to exercise independence, sovereignty and noninterference in the economic and political affairs by other nations. Tun Dr. Mahathir had been
labelled as anti-West especially in his international political posturing but his interpersonal
relationships with some Western political and business leaders would indicate otherwise. There
were two sides of Tun Mahathir.

Tun Mahathir in the defence of the national interest, he was absently independent and
uncompromising and secondly in the economic policy and personal relationships he was a more
pragmatist. His actions to some extend were very much driven by his view on the injustice and
unfairness of the colonial era, and the international system. Tun Dr. Mahathir wanted to
rearrange the international political, economics, security and societal systems to create a more
balanced world order for the benefits of the developing and developed countries.
Malaysia was a good example of diversity that succeeded. The mosaics of the
international society, in his view made it imperative to accept multiculturalism as a source to
build a better world. Malaysia throughout her history participated actively in promoting diversity,
tolerance and harmony. Despite criticising the West including the US, Malaysia in a pragmatic
way maintained close economic, trading, investment, security and military links with the US.
This practical approach served her national and strategic interests.
By defining the national interest clearly, and aligning it to the struggles against the
injustices and unfairness in the international political system in all dimensions, Malaysia was
noticed by Third World countries of the South, the Islamic Ummah and ASEAN including East
Asia, as well as the developed countries. Malaysia due to its economic success and political
stability was able to take the lead for the interests of developing countries and circumvented the
pressure for hegemony and domination of the big Western powers.
It was the call of Malaysia for small and developing countries to stand up and defend
their rights, interests and well-being (Mohamad,2004). The foreign policy indicated the
independent posture of her policy which demonstrated the ability to exercise sovereignty and
prevent interference of her domestic policy. This of course could be interpreted as ignoring the
reality of international politics and the structure of the international system; nonetheless the
implementation of the foreign policy was the national interest of Malaysia.

In the implementation of the foreign policy Tun Dr. Mahathir obviously lacked
diplomatic finesse. These postures on foreign policy and pronouncements seemed to be contrary
to Tun Dr. Mahathir personally, who was soft spoken and polite. However, sarcasms and
cynicisms were part of his personal traits. According to him, this was his way to get his message
across. He repeatedly iterated a small country like Malaysia had to be vocal and loud in order to
be heard.
The foreign policy of Malaysia was active, nationalistic and assertive in defending and
promoting her NI. Malaysia showcased itself during the Mahathir era as a model of a successful
developing country, though she has a multi-ethnic, multicultural and multi-religious population.
Malaysia however sustained a more tolerant and harmonious diverse society and was politically
stable. She succeeded in the implementation of the New Economic Policy, with the objective of
achieving economic growth with equity. Malaysia thus stood tall in the community of developing
nations and admired even by some developed countries in the West for its economic success and
her Vision 2020.
During Tun Dr. Mahathir premiership he spoke against the stereotyping of Muslims with
terrorisms or any forms of extremisms. The argument put forward was acts of terrorisms or
extremisms should not be made synonymous with the faith of the offender (Mahathir, 2011).
They were other acts of terrorism whether committed by non-state actors or state actors but their
beliefs or religions were not labelled as such. He lambasted Western governments and media on
their double standards and stereotyping in their portrayals of Islam and Muslims. He proposed
that the use of drones against the so called terrorists targets as acts of terrorism.

The West was also considered to be dragging their feet on issues affecting the
Palestinians and Bosnians causes. Malaysia was critical of Israel due to its blatant disregard of
international laws and the non-compliance with the UN resolutions. Malaysia was disillusioned
with the Western failure to take action against Israel for their non-compliance with the UN
resolutions or blatant disregard of international law. Malaysia was of the opinion the military
action by Israel against the Palestinians as terrorist acts by the state. Malaysia also called on the
international community and the UN to take action against the Serbs genocide acts in Bosnia
during the Balkan War.
Malaysia together with Turkey, Iran and Pakistan defied the UNs sanction to enable the
Bosnians to defend themselves against the Serbs. It was Malaysia that organised the OIC Foreign
and Defence Ministers meeting to discuss on the appropriate strategies to discuss the ways to
stop Serbs aggression. Malaysia kept its pragmatic, principle and consistent posture when it took
part in the peacekeeping force of the UN in Bosnia. Domestically the participation of Malaysia in
Bosnia had the support of the Malaysian public. Thus supporting the Palestinian and Bosnian
against aggression was deemed to be part of the national interest of Malaysia.
Malaysia took Bosnian who wanted to escape from the war as refugees to its shores. It
was not unexpected for Malaysia to associate itself with other Muslims countries worldwide as a
Muslim majority country. Tun Dr. Mahathir was an idealist when he was determined to change
the image and trajectory of Islam and Muslims (Mohamad, 2011). Malaysia was recognised as a
true model of a Muslim state pursuing modernity and development. The foreign policy in this
regard was constructivist when she associated herself with the Muslim countries and Islamic
causes, definitely it was not idiosyncratic.
Malaysias courage to criticise the major powers on their unilateral actions in Iraq and
Afghanistan was an exception amongst developing countries. It was also Malaysia that
propagated Muslim states to be economically and militarily strong. This was well received
especially in the Muslim streets of the OIC countries but unpopular with the ruling elites and the
Western countries. Tun Dr. Mahathir thus became a household name and an icon, while Malaysia
became an example of what a Muslim state could do at the international platform.

Malaysia gained recognition through its foreign policy postures, initiatives and outcomes
which was national interest in term of its trajectory of power, security and prosperity. This
satisfied the political, economic, security and societal interests and imperatives of the country.
The various foreign policy postures, initiatives and outcomes during the Tun Dr.
Mahathirs era was shaped and influenced by the national interest, with change and continuity. It
was not motivated by idiosyncrasy or iconoclasm of Tun Dr. Mahathir. Malaysia showed in her
foreign policy it was guided by her national and strategic interests. She was at the same time
pragmatic in her management of foreign policy to achieve her political, economic, security and
societal interests and imperatives.