Balancing geopolitical interests

ON March 27, 2014, after the Russian annexation of Crimea, Malaysia voted in favour of UN General Assembly Resolution 68/262 supporting the territorial integrity of Ukraine. It was surreal: a year before, I was in Yalta visiting the site of the conference which shaped the peace after World War II. On March 2, 2022, Malaysia voted for UN General Assembly Resolution ES-11/1 which “deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine; and demands it immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces”.

This was the view of most of the world, including around half of our fellow members of the OIC, and our Asean neighbours except Laos and Vietnam (although Myanmar’s UN Ambassador doesn’t speak for its rulers). The rest abstained; only Belarus, Syria, North Korea and Eritrea joined Russia in voting against the resolution. Despite its strong wording, in reality many countries are still balancing competing geopolitical interests by issuing softer bilateral statements.

One common conclusion from viewing the conflict purely through the prism of international relations theory is that it was entirely predictable. Russia is doing exactly as it logically would: you can plot a timeline with the actions and reactions leading to this brutal escalation of conflict that has resulted in 10 million Ukrainians leaving their homes (according to the UNHCR), and thousands of soldiers dead on both sides.

Under this framework, it does not matter whether Ukraine (or as a democracy, “the Ukrainian people”) has the “right” to join Nato. It may well have the “right” under international law and even morally, but that won’t stop Russia from acting in its strategic interest.

But it’s also dispassionate geopolitics that has led to rapid attitudinal shifts within Europe, such as Germany building up its military; Swedes and Finns moving in favour of joining Nato; and famously neutral Switzerland joining sanctions against Russia and Belarus and welcoming Ukrainian refugees.

The views I hear from fellow Malaysians are extremely diverse, revealing different expectations of Malaysia’s place in the world. Apparently there are conservative Malaysians who love authoritarians in general and Vladimir Putin in particular, but in my WhatsApp groups are friends and relatives who are ardently pro-Russia mainly because they are anti-US (sometimes referencing the Ukrainian president’s Jewishness), while a smaller number are pro-China. Much of this takes the form of pointing out previous US crimes all over the world: “why should we care about Ukraine, especially when Muslims are being killed elsewhere?”

Some push back by flipping the analogy: it is Russia who is the big bully, threatening nuclear and already using white phosphorus weapons against its smaller neighbour, thus we should equate the Ukrainians to Palestinians. Others still recall the downing of MH17 in territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists.

Little is said about the economic impact. Malaysia’s trade with both countries is less than 0.5% of total trade volume, though a prolonged conflict will impact food supply chain issues given the two countries’ contribution of wheat and grain. So far, it is palm oil prices that have boomed to a record RM8,000 a tonne as sunflower oil shipments from the Black Sea have halted.

But the majority view is one of sympathy. Regardless of geopolitics, the accounts and footage of people fleeing their homes or defending their towns are heartbreaking and heroic. Sympathy, too, for the Russian teenagers sent to fight in Ukraine without fully understanding why, and improperly supplied for the mission (as intercepted communications suggest). The intensity of the propaganda is encapsulated by Ukrainians with parents in Russia who refuse to believe that towns are being flattened.

Even towards the media reports there is much scepticism: the devastation and humanitarian crisis allegedly a media invention. Thus, professional journalists risking their lives reporting from the frontline are dismissed in favour of conspiracist blogs or propagandist Twitter accounts. Yes, of course established media has its biases, but there are so many journalists on the ground from different organisations (not just from the West), local material from the ground taken from multiple angles, and independent analysts cross-checking video authenticity, locations and timestamps.

In the long-term, perhaps the most pertinent conversations surround the analogy between Malaysia and Ukraine, as a small country subject to competing geopolitical pressures. One day, our choices might invite incursions from neighbouring big powers. Will we take a “realist” view of adjusting our alignments to maintain peace? Or will we have the conviction of our values, express them internationally and seek the defences and alliances necessary to deal with a potential reaction?

I would much prefer the latter.

In the meantime, I hope the beautiful Al-Salam mosque I prayed in Odessa remains intact.

Tunku Zain Al-‘Abidin is founding president of Ideas. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.