SOME time ago I was amused by a North Korean official confused about US foreign policy: it seemed to change just because the people would occasionally elect a different president. To dictatorial regimes, the idea that foreign policy reflects the will of the people is absurd.
The UK House of Commons vote on Syria last week was a clear example of elected representatives influencing a country’s foreign policy. It is a relatively new concept in the UK, because making war and peace is part of the Royal Prerogative, which the Prime Minister can exercise without parliamentary approval. However, in 2003, Tony Blair went before the House to make the case for the invasion of Iraq. He obtained cross-party support (and the rest is history), but since then many MPs claim that they were misled by misrepresentation of the evidence, with subsequent enquiries further stirring doubt.
Because of that experience, British MPs are now demanding more evidence, with some demanding a UN Security Council resolution. Still, the assumption is that a comfortable majority will be obtained if it is proven that President Bashar Assad authorised the use of chemical weapons against his own people: humanitarian interventionists will join those concerned about regional stability and military hawks to vote “yes”. That is why there is now talk about another vote if new evidence surfaces.
It was initially thought that the result of the British vote would result in the sidelining of the UK, and that the US and France would go ahead and attack anyway. Instead, President Barack Obama – invested with the same prerogative to make peace and war as the British executive – has decided to get approval from Congress. It might be a political gimmick (in that the president is seeking to share blame if the war goes badly, or if no intervention results in a humanitarian catastrophe), but elected representatives will nonetheless debate the issues. This is good for US voters who rarely take an interest in foreign policy matters.
Meanwhile, some of my Malaysian Muslim friends view the issue through the prism of the imperialist West invading (yet another) Muslim country. I remind them that Nato intervention in Kosovo saved hundreds of thousands of Muslim lives, and that the OIC supported that action (even if the UN Security Council did not). Of course, a vast difference in attitude occurs when it is Muslims killing Muslims as opposed to non-Muslims killing Muslims: different standards of justice seem to apply. Shamefully.
This attitude translates into our foreign policy, too. We are of course quick to condemn Western politicians (and these days, Myanmar monks) for any harm to Muslims but we are pathetically slow at condemning Muslim leaders if they do similar things. We were not always so hypocritical, though.
Every Merdeka, as with last week, we hear wonderful stories about how our founding fathers formulated domestic policy. But foreign policy was also an important aspect at our birth: Tunku Abdul Rahman did not just speak of “liberty and justice” at home, but promoted “freedom and peace” abroad. The world knew our stance during the Cold War, and it is sad that the Tunku’s efforts in fighting apartheid in South Africa have been completely forgotten [it is the reason why Nelson Mandela’s first words to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Mahathir Mohamad at their first meeting were: “can I meet the Tunku?” (he didn’t, but that’s for another article)]. Such courage was noticed by other Muslim leaders, which is why the Tunku was appointed first Secretary General of the OIC (another forgotten appointment).
Earlier this year I was part of a Foreign Policy Studies Group meeting at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies to make proposals to the Prime Minister to enhance our foreign policy. Other members of the group included representatives from civil society, media, military and Wisma Putra itself. The final document is a group effort, but amongst the points I made repeatedly were the need to depoliticise diplomatic appointments and democratise foreign policy.
We might not be seeking to punish tyrants for gassing their own people, but there are still many things the Dewan Rakyat can do that would strengthen our foreign policy. A permanent Foreign Affairs Committee should be a minimum, but things like the final draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement should be approved by the whole house.
No doubt, things have changed since Merdeka: there are new threats and opportunities and as a small country in a multi-polar world, it is necessary to be cordial to many different nations simultaneously. But I reckon that if our leaders show some backbone in defending our founding values, and submitted them to the rakyat, we would gain confidence at home and respect abroad.
Tunku Abidin Muhriz is president of Ideas.