Interview: Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
Far Eastern Economic Review | March 2006 
Last month, Jeremy Hurewitz met with the grand old man of Malaysian politics, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. Wearing a pin proclaiming his desire for peace, Malaysia ?s former prime minister spoke from his office in Putrajaya, the seat of the Malaysian government. 
Jeremy Hurewitz: What are your thoughts on China ?s rise? Do you see any threats from a powerful China ? 
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad: I think that China is bound to play a very important role in both East Asia and all the world. You cannot stop China . It is the sleeping lion who has now woken up. And his appetite is enormous. We have Chinese in this country [ Malaysia ], and we know that the Chinese are very dynamic, very intelligent, very skillful people, and when you consider that there are 1.3 billion Chinese in China , their ability to compete with the rest of the world is tremendous. Looking back, of course, China was industrialized long before Europe . They used to produce many goods, even if they didn?t then have the mass production techniques that they use today. They worked so fast that they could produce a lot of products which were used all over the world. They used to trade with us?textiles, stoneware, paper. Now they have adopted the techniques of the West: mass production, quality and innovation. That is the China of the future. And there is always the fear that this huge lion might gobble up the rest of the world. But we in Malaysia have had relations with China for over two thousand years. We have traded with China , but the Chinese have never colonized us. Even when they thought that we were not treating their people well we never had any of their warships come here in response. On the other hand, when the Europeans came here, specifically the Portuguese, some were arrested and detained by the Malacca government in 1509. Two years later a flotilla of ships came here and conquered Malacca. So the approach is quite different. We have been trading with China , India , the Arabs, the Persians and the Japanese for centuries. But the moment the Europeans came they think in terms of securing supply and monopolies. And basically they ended up conquering all their trading partners: Malaysia , Indonesia , Burma , Vietnam . They tried with China but it was too big. So we are familiar with the West. 
JH: But is Malaysia threatened at all economically by China ?s rise? For example, electronic components that were once sourced from Southeast Asia for assembly into consumer electronics in China , will likely?sooner or later?be made by China , and Malaysia will need to look elsewhere for its economic growth. How should Malaysia manage its relationship with China ? 
MM: A country?s development initially depends on their low-cost position: how willing the people are to accept low wages. As they develop their costs begin to rise as their people want to be more highly paid. Sometimes they become steadily less competitive. In the case of China this process will take a bit longer, much longer in fact. But even now we see on the eastern coast of China the costs and the wages of engineers are higher than Malaysia . They are actually beginning to invest in other countries. Maybe it?s in order to soft-pedal things, but if you look at the trade treaties between Malaysia and China , we are actually exporting electronic goods to China . Now supposing the Chinese become very rich, per capita income over a half century reaches that of the United States, they are going to be a very big market for us and we are sure to find something that they want which they cannot produce themselves. And certainly the number of tourists will increase tremendously. So there will be a change in terms of the character of our industry. But a rich China can be a useful market for us. 
JH: What are your words of advice to China and Japan on their difficult relationship? Should Japan apologize? What about Yasukuni Shrine visits? 
MM: I?ve been talking to the Japanese and the Chinese, pointing out that Germany and France were the greatest of European enemies, but they decided that it didn?t pay, that in order for Europe to progress Germany and France must make up. And they did. To see German troops parading in Paris a few years back, that was something very unexpected. So the Chinese and Japanese must learn that you can look back into the past and revisit the atrocities, but if we all just look to the past we will never talk to each other. We have problems with Thailand ; they have killed a lot of our people. But today they are not killing our people, so we have to think of today and not of the past. So the Chinese and Japanese must learn to accommodate each other and to not needle each other unnecessarily. 
JH: You?ve been a leader who has advocated non-interference in a state?s internal affairs, so do you think it's wrong for China to criticize the Japanese Prime Minister for his visits to the Yasukuni shrine and to continue to demand apologies? 
MM: The Japanese have apologized several times, and the Chinese keep saying that that is not enough. But tell me what is enough? And then of course these visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, if this is a normal visit it is alright. But he [Mr. Koizumi] never made that visit before and now he purposely makes those visits and several members of his cabinet also make them. It looks too much like a confrontation. That kind of thing should stop. If he was visiting the Yasukuni Shrine as a part of his normal life that is one thing. But his visits are very purposeful. 
JH: Let?s talk about Asian leadership for a moment. Where have the Mahathirs, the Lee Kuan Yews gone to? Where are the strong Asian leaders? 
MM: I don?t know whether I was a strong leader or not, I was merely interested in the interests of my own country, but if I needed to speak out loud I would. The present leaders are faced with a lot of internal problems; there are a lot of violent opposition movements and all that. They are preoccupied with internal matters. They have not come out with any strong stand on international issues. In Malaysia our leader has very strong support. But of course he has not made too much noise about it. 
JH: Would you ever consider reentering Malaysian politics? 
MM: No. I have left Malaysian politics, but with one thing in mind. Although I said I will not interfere with the government, of course if something very serious should happen to the country and I?m asked to give an opinion, I will give it. But as to entering Malaysian politics again?no. 
JH: You met with Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra of Thailand in November. What is your current assessment of the conflict in southern Thailand ? 
MM: I?m still kind of involved in trying to find a solution, but we haven?t really found a solution and I?m not a person to talk about something which may be in principle differently viewed by people. That is why I have tended to have a very low profile. 
JH: But do you still advocate autonomy for the three southern provinces in Thailand ? 
MM: Well there is a problem with the word ?autonomy? in Thailand . In Thailand , autonomy means independence. Because of that they reacted very strongly to what I said, but that is their right. 
JH: Asia has experienced such extraordinary economic growth over the last 30 years, yet Burma and Cambodia are badly lagging behind. Do you worry about them turning into failed states and destabilizing the region? How should the challenges of these countries be handled? 
MM: Well I have thought that by interacting with them you could influence them, and to a certain extent we have, in the case of Cambodia . Unfortunately, some personalities are still worried about themselves. You know about the fate of those people who decided that their countries should become democracies. Some of them were jailed, some of them were accused of all kinds of things in places like Dhaka , South Korea and in other places. When you give up a power there is no certainty that you will be safe. The new leaders might want to take action against you, for whatever reason, even if the transfer is a normal transfer. But a new leader must prove he?s better than the one he left behind. 
JH: How would you evaluate the recent East Asian Summit ? 
MM: Not as lively as I had hoped. They don?t seem to take on the international issues of the moment very strongly. There was too much diplomacy and a desire to just get along with each other and not really deal with problems. I think it [Asian integration] will not happen soon. A long time ago we had the East Asian economic grouping, this was something to balance the grouping of Europe and that of NAFTA. I thought that we need something to counterbalance that, but it took a long time because of objections from America . Eventually this developed into the form of Asean Plus Three. And now they talk about including Australia and New Zealand . Once you start talking about Australia and New Zealand it is no longer East Asian. Australia and New Zealand are not East Asian countries. Geographically maybe they are, but in terms of culture they are not?. 
JH: Does Russia have a role to play in Asian integration? 
MM: Not as a part of the East Asian grouping, but in APEC they are actually a member and I think they have a role to play. Russia is basically more Asian than these other countries [ Australia and New Zealand ]. You have a huge chunk of Russia in East Asia and they are very much concerned by what happens in East Asia . 
JH: What are your thoughts on the recent controversy over cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad? 
MM: Now this is very unfortunate. It shows a lack of sensitivity. Yes, there should be press freedom. But there is no such thing as absolute freedom to do anything you like. You have to be sensitive to the environment, to the society. I think people need to become aware of Muslim sensitivities and not provoke them unnecessarily. Having said that, I think that Muslims need to adapt. I don?t mean that they should accept this kind of thing, but they need to make clear to the rest of the world that while the Europeans and the Americans have actually mostly forsaken a belief in God, the Muslim belief is still very strong. And those who have become atheistic, as much as they expect people to accept their rejection of faith they must also accept that other people still cling to faith. 
JH: How would you evaluate the Hamas victory in the recent Palestinian elections? 
MM: Well, you ask for democracy and this is the choice of the people and you have to respect it. You cannot say, ?Well, you?ve elected a government that we don?t like so we will break off relations.? You have to deal with Hamas; Hamas is there, and the people support Hamas. To say that you will have nothing do with them is not going to help at all. 
JH: What do you think of the conditions that certain nations have put in place about dealing with Hamas in terms of recognizing Israel and forsaking violence? 
MM: I think both sides should renounce violence. Israel should renounce violence and not keep a huge army. Israel should declare that they will not use violence and then I think that Hamas will not use violence also. You ask Hamas not to use violence, but what do they have? They don?t have tanks, planes, helicopter gunships and all that, and you ask them not to use violence when the other side has these weapons? They really need to fight against their enemies and the way they have to do so is what is called terrorism. But to me, what is terrorism? If you have terrified a country, then that country is a kind of terrorist. If you are terrified of being bombed by a B-52 flying 50,000 feet high then this is a kind of terrorism. 
JH: What is your view of the impasse over Iran ?s nuclear program? 
MM: I think you are driving Iran into a corner and they will fight. It is the same thing that happened in Iraq ; they [the Americans] know very well that the evidence for them [ Iraq ] having weapons of mass destruction is not really proven. I think they are just trying to make out a case for invading Iran and maybe even using nuclear bombs against Iran . I don?t think they will send troops into Iran because to do that you are going to face the possibility of being stuck in Iran . But I think they are going to bomb Iran , they are going to rocket Iran . And they are going to kill a lot of innocent people. 
JH: But do you think Iran is being honest about its nuclear program? 
MM: I don?t know about being honest or not honest, but to me, if Israel can have nuclear weapons then why not Iran ? If India has a nuclear weapon then why not Pakistan ? Is it that Muslim countries cannot have weapons? They cannot have airplanes? They cannot have anything? They cannot even blow themselves up because they must renounce violence. 
JH: So what is your suggestion for a solution to the current impasse with Iran ? 
MM: I think there should be a halt to everything. Let?s see whether Iran is going to develop nuclear weapons or not. If they develop nuclear weapons then it is their response to others having nuclear weapons. If others don?t want Iran to have nuclear weapons than the first thing the nuclear powers should do is stop creating new weapons. They cost the world a huge sum of money and it doesn?t contribute to anything. The temptation to use nuclear weapons will one day prove to be too strong. I?m for peace (laughing and gesturing to a button on his shirt that says ?I?m for Peace?). I think no one should use war to solve a problem. And today what you are seeing is that some countries which advocate peace are building up tremendous military capabilities. 
JH: China included of course. 
MM: China included, Russia included. I?m not exempting anybody. Unless we do away with all these weapons there is always going to be war. And people are going to live in terror. You don?t know when and where a country is going to lob a bomb into your house. 
Mr. Hurewitz is editor of the monthly Asian Century Series for Project Syndicate, a nonprofit international association of newspapers.   
Source: Far Eastern Economic Review | www.feer.com
http://www.feer.com/articles1/2006/interviews/free/mohamed.html