By Phar Kim Beng

Not since the end of World War II in 1945 has the world witnessed a consistent spike in defence spending all across the major regions of the world, according to an annual study by the Stockholm International Peace and Research Institute (SIPRI).

As per SIPRI’s explanation, well published in the global media: "World military expenditure increased for the ninth consecutive year in 2023, reaching a total of US$2,443 billion. The 6.8 per cent increase in 2023 was the steepest year-on-year rise since 2009 and pushed global spending to the highest level SIPRI has ever recorded."

Just as importantly, SIPRI quickly affirmed: "... (that) the world military burden – defined as military spending as a percentage of global gross domestic product (GDP) – increased to 2.3 per cent in 2023. Average military expenditure as a share of government expenditure rose by 0.4 percentage points to 6.9 per cent in 2023 and world military spending per person was the highest since 1990, at US$306."

The extensive quote above is not meant to oversimplify everything in the world. The latter is already complex enough. Rather, the state of the globe is in dire straits to the very core. How? There are two ways to look at it, both of which have risen to the top of the agenda of the great powers, especially China and the United States.

First and foremost, whether it is negatively impacted by the possibility of the weaponisation of "Artificial Intelligence (AI)” or a vastly altered climate pattern (ACP) in every part of the planet (earth), the fact is the survival of the human species is at stake.

Second, precisely due to a combo of the two factors above, a class of "super empowered individuals” (SEI), a phrase used by Thomas Friedman to describe the actions of Osama bin Laden in the aftermath of the attacks of 911 against the United States, seemed oblivious to the plight of the poor and underprivileged. The hoarding of wealth continues to race ahead in favour of the top one per cent of the world.

When the international society is unable to adapt to the contingencies in any organised and multilateral manner, it is entirely inappropriate to expect the likes of Malaysia to hold on indefinitely to any "universal standards of international relations”, when the proverbial bottom is literally not there.

Ukraine and Gaza

Be it Ukraine or Gaza, Malaysian leaders cannot be expected to see the two issues as one and the same, especially when armed conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza were triggered by different causes. This is the problem with those who accuse Malaysia of subscribing to "double standards" when Putrajaya is no longer holding firmly to opposing Russia's prior aggressions on Ukraine that started on 24 February 2022.

One such critique was delivered by Ian Storey at the Yusuf Ishak Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) in Singapore.

Malaysia has to rely on "traditional” and "trade diplomacy”, according to Malaysian Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Mohamad Hasan. This has been the tried and tested template of the country since 1957. Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who has the first and final say on Malaysia’s foreign policy, cannot be adversely judged by his visit to Russia in early September 2024. There are three compelling reasons on why Anwar has to engage Russia.

One, the Ukraine conflict is not necessarily a war which, for the lack of a better phrase, must 'prick the conscience' of the world indefinitely, tragic as the plight of the Ukrainians is. Due to the impact of this war on the prices of fuel, food, (animal) feed and fertilizer, many do want the war to end.

Yet, 2024 marks the Chairmanship of Russia of BRICS, otherwise known as BRIC Plus due to its expanded membership. Moscow cannot be forced to yield to the G7, the European Union (EU) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) without destroying its own credibility. As things are, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of China is already 64 times bigger than Russia’s.

It defies all forms of strategic logic that Anwar must not visit Russia when the likes of India, traditionally a non-aligned country, has made a major killing on its energy trade with Russia.

From 0.2 per cent of its energy imports from Russia barely few years ago, New Delhi's purchase of Russian oil and gas products had spiked to 47 per cent last year before coming down to 37 per cent in 2024. These are energy products that are also parlayed and sold to the likes of Germany in the EU.

Second, what was considered a victory of Ukraine over Russia in Kursk on 6 August 2024, has now turned out to be a massive failure. To begin with, Kursk is a sparsely populated region of Russia. Naturally the Ukrainian offensive met no serious resistance from Russian forces.

Thus, the one million square km occupied by the Ukrainian forces has turned out to be useless.

As of 17 September 2024, when Russian troops poured into Ukraine, President Vladimir Putin had regained the lost areas, while losing none of the 20 per cent that he has laid claim to the east of Ukraine since the war began. As John Mearsheimer pointed out, time and again, it is mindless to expect the world to back the war against Russia wholesale. Besides, Malaysia does not acknowledge nor recognise unilateral sanctions against Russia or anyone.

Three, while Malaysia can continue to oppose this war in principle, based on international law, national interest dictates that Malaysia cannot support a lost cause perpetually.

Putin's two basic conditions to returning to the negotiation table with Ukraine and the G7 are very firm:

I. No more expansion of NATO;

II. No NATO membership, let alone EU membership, for Ukraine too.

To the degree Ukraine and G7, indeed EU and NATO, cannot reverse themselves out of this war in Eastern Europe, it goes without saying that Malaysia cannot be duty-bound to uphold any "moral standards”, when a concurrent war in Gaza has become a potential genocide according to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Rome.

Global norms bound to differ

In any anarchical international society, according to the scholarship of the English School of Thought, which was pioneered by the late Hedley Bull, global norms and mores are bound to differ and become internalised unevenly.

Malaysia respects international laws and customs. But the over-riding interest to engage all the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) must always be prime. Malaysia cannot reject the United States, China, the United Kingdom and France wholesale any more than it can denounce Russia permanently.

The same applies to all members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the East Asian Summit (EAS) of which Malaysia would be the Chair all through 2025. Indeed, it is worth stating that Russia is a Dialogue Partner of ASEAN via its role in the EAS.

It was Ian Bremmer, President of the Eurasia Group, an entity known none other by The Economist as the "world's most successful geopolitical consultancy”, that wrote about a G Zero World in 2012.

A G Zero World implies one where there are no anchors to hold the international society together to give global governance a chance. When the world is now truly adrift, it does not stand up to any form of scrutiny that Malaysia must now wear the crown of thorns with all perpetrators that severed all semblance of morality from all forms of international engagements to begin with.

These were the ones that went as far as attacking countries without any weapons of mass destruction, such as Iraq barely 20 years ago.

Can it be any wonder why Anwar has exercised the prerogative to engage Russia and BRICS Plus too? Thailand has applied to be a member of the latter too. One doesn't see any barbed remarks against Thailand in the open press.

If anything, Nikkei Asia, which owns The Financial Times, has confirmed that Russian investments in Phuket have raised the property and tourism sectors of this island alone.

Why should Malaysia be picked out for public lashing for thinking of Russia? Unless and until these questions can be firmly answered, Malaysia has every right to remain true to its multi-directional foreign policy to face the harsh reality of the world; before it passes all points of inflection of no return.

Besides, when Malaysians are not protesting against these initiatives, it beckons common sense why others should speak negatively against its leadership, once again.

-- BERNAMA

Dr Phar Kim Beng is the founder and CEO of Strategic Pan Indo-Pacific Arena.