When engagement is seen as a threat

IN March, following the trilateral security partnership formed between Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom, known as Aukus, Malaysia issued a strong statement which basically stated it does not support the move.

While the statement acknowledged the need of these countries to enhance their defence capabilities, Putrajaya told the pact to fully respect and comply with Malaysia’s existing national regime in regard to the operation of nuclear-powered submarines in Malaysia’s waters, including those laws under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the South-East Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty, and the Asean Declara-tion on the Zone of Peace, Freedom and Neutrality.

“Malaysia further underscores the importance of promoting transparency and confidence- building among all countries and refraining from any provocation that could potentially trigger an arms race or affect peace and security in the region,” the Foreign Ministry said in the statement.

Following that statement, American and Wisma Putra officials met so the Americans could explain what Aukus is all about.

Even before the security pact was formalised, countries – including Malaysia and Indonesia – had raised concerns because it would risk a regional arms race in view of increasing tensions in the South China Sea. The three countries sent their top foreign officials to Asean countries in attempts to address unhappiness and concern over the move.

In diplomacy, it is a normal practise for countries to send their officials to other countries to explain and state their stand on certain issues. It can also be done via a “demarche”, which is actually diplomatic correspondence issued by one government and addressed to another. It is a formal expression to inform or to persuade or express unhappiness on an issue.

“At the end of the day, it depends heavily on what is conveyed and how it is construed. As to whether a demarche equals a threat, that is oversimplifying or even exaggeration,” said one diplomat.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim piqued the interest of many in the past weeks since he came back from a tour of several West Asian countries on a diplomatic push for countries to do something to stop the attack by Israel in Gaza, which has killed thousands since the conflict began early last month.

He told a crowd of thousands at the Himpunan Malaysia Bersama Palestine rally on Oct 24 that Malaysia had been criticised by some sections in Europe as well as the United States and Israel for its support for Gaza and the Palestinians.

“I want to say that as long as I have the mandate of the people, I will not back down from these threats. We will fight,” he told the rally.

In solidarity: Anwar (right), here seen with Zambry at a press conference in Seri Perdana, has piqued the interest of many in the past weeks since he came back from a tour of several West Asian countries on a diplomatic push for countries to do something to stop the attack by Israel in Gaza, which has killed thousands since it began early last month. — Bernama

Naturally the media picked up on these remarks and when he was asked the next day who issued the threats, Anwar said it came from some European MPs and that he would explain further in Parliament.

On Tuesday, at the Dewan Rakyat, in reply to a question about these threats, Anwar said apart from our ambassador to Washington DC, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, being called for a meeting with the State Department and pressed about Malaysia’s stand, Wisma Putra also received a demarche from the US embassy here.

On Oct 30, Malaysia was asked by a US embassy official to use diplomatic channels to urge a country to not take advantage of the Gaza conflict by using a proxy to get involved in the war. While no country was specified, it is believed the country referred to by the United States was Iran.

This writer contacted Nazri in Washington who confirmed earlier reports that he was called by a State Department official.

“I was told to be in an office at a certain time and when the call came through, I was informed that Malaysia did not show any sympathy towards Israel and told to issue a statement to show sympathy to people in Israel.

“I replied no. It is not forthcoming, no statement from Malaysia,” Nazri said.

Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir said the demarche received from the US cannot be taken lightly.

“We know that what is going on now is a very big crisis involving a major power. We cannot take it lightly. This is not the first time,” he told the Dewan Rakyat .

He also said there were three demarches previously.

The question is what constitutes a threat by this big power. If the demarche, or the conversation that took place, states the Americans’ concern about what is seen by them as one-sided statements or expressing disappointment with Malaysia’s position, are we supposed to take it as a threat?

Is Malaysia that amateurish about understanding diplomatic language, the nuances and process of engagement?

Wisma Putra should spell out what is in the demarche from the US embassy because it is also important for the Malaysian public to know what is our response to that notice.

“Sending a demarche is quite standard procedure for the United States. That’s normal, we understand that but we must fight back and make noise so that we are not intimidated and that’s our principled stance,” said an observer.

Is it wise to tell the world that the government is being threatened and whether the threat is real? Or is it just an exaggeration or overreaction to a demarche from a foreign government?

“A threat means if you do this or if you don’t do this, something will happen. We have never threatened anybody, they have never counter-threatened us. It is just them voicing their concern.

“Yes, a demarche is something we should pay attention to. There are many things that we differ on with the United States but so far it has not come to blows,” said an official.

Another official viewed the demarche as a way of reaching out to Malaysia and that we have influence on others who may listen to us.

“If we are being considered a foregone conclusion, they would have not bothered engaging.

“We need to know the content of the demarche. It can be a form of engagement, quite formal but not necessarily bad.”

The Prime Minister came back from a highly successful visit to West Asia after meeting leaders from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Egypt where the Israel oppression of Palestine took centre stage.

Malaysia is indeed a player to be reckoned with on the international stage when it comes to the Palestine conflict. But within a short span after the PM’s return, the question of Malaysia fighting for Palestinian rights has taken on another dimension and we are left wondering what threat we might be facing.