LATEST NEWS FROM PERDANA GLOBAL PEACE ORGANISATION

ADDRESS

by

TUN Dr. MAHATHIR MOHAMAD

“EXPOSE WAR CRIMES: CRIMINALISE WAR”

IMPERIAL COLLEGE

KENSINGTON

LONDON

It 1.It is heartening to be asked to speak on criminalizing war ? a subject that needs to be taken up by all civilized people. How can we claim to be civilized when we condone and legalise mass killings of men, women and children, the old and the sick as a solution to conflicts between nations. We usually consider the most successful killers, the ones who do the most amount of damage as the winners and they are entitled to put thr losers on trial and punish them, including murdering them. The judges in these courts are nationals of the winning countries. There can be no impartiality.

2. 2. Yet at the same time we consider murder as a very serious crime which merit severe punishment. The more civilized countries claim to be so concerned about human life that they have abolished the death penalty, even for murderes.

3. 3. But these same countries and these same people consider the bombing innocent civilians, launching explosive missiles against them, machine gunning and blowing them up with grenades as ligitimise and morally right.

4. 4. There is something wrong there. How can we object to the murder of individual when approve mass killing of innocent people. Yet that is what we do in war ? we kill people, not always soldiers who may kill us but, now, more and more often, innocent civilians who can do us no harm.

5. 5. War was in the ancient times a necessary option in the settlement of conflicts between primitive people of nations. But in thoese days the capacity to kill and to destroy was limited. The weapons used were incapable of mass destruction or mass killings. Soldiers had to handle the swords, bows and arrows, spears and daggers themselves. They had to face the enemies who were similarly armed. If they failed to kill the enemy they would be killed themselves.

6. 6. Wars were fought by soldiers on battle fields in those days. Of the necessity the armies were small and the killings were relatively small. The losers would submit to the victors and the war would be over. The killings would also stop.

7. 7. But over time the war-like nations developed more and more lethal weapons and the killings have become more massive. Now we are seeing weapons of mass destruction capable of killing hundreds of thousands, not on battle fields but just about anywhere. The whole country is made a battlefield, sparing neither towns nor countryside, neither soldiers nor civilians, the old, the sick and the disabled men, women and children. The killings and the devastation is total.

8. 8. Such is the callousness of the human race that we see the killings and the wounds inflicted as just numbers, as casualties, and now as collaterals. The warriors gleefully notch their weapons to record scores of kills. It is as if these victims are not human. Yet the sufferings and the pain are very real to these people, to their families and friends.

9. 9. These people may killed by the wounds inflicted, or they may have their limbs and their heads torn off from their bodies while still alive. The sufferings may be over quickly but imagine having parts of your body torn off, your head pulled out from your neck.

10. For those who survive, the pain and the suffering must be terrible. And in most cases no help would be forthcoming, no medical aid and, no hospitals to be taken to. They may lie there on the roads, of the fields or buried and crushed under fallen buildings, for hours with no hope for rescue. They may suffer horribly for hours until death relives them.

11. We are not talking about one or two persons. With modern weapons, hundreds and thousands would experience this horror, the pain and death.

12. We would strive hard to raise money to treat one cancer patient for example. We are so human and humane. Yet we think nothing of killing healthy people by ten of thousands.

13. We read about the war, we even see pictures and TV coverage of war but we hardly ever get to see the real sufferings of the victims of war. We practically enjoy the TV coverage of war without thinking about the sufferings of fellow-humans just like us who had been wounded and killed in real life, not just in the cinema or TV screens.

14. We do not think of the smell of war, of the smell of rotting bodies, of gangrenous legs and arms, because our television cannot bring these odours to our comfortable sitting room. In fact the TV cameras avoid showing the horrors resulting from the war. They do not want to offend our sensitivities. Nor do they record and broadcast the screams of pain of the wounded and the dying.

15. We must all know that war is about pain and death and destruction. But after the civilised countries of the West developed standing armies to replace the irregular rabbles, the state and the leaders of these countries began to glorify war. They promoted the idea that war was noble and those who fought wars and die or were wounded were heroes and the icons of the people. They struck medals to decorate the killers they sent into battle.

16. Soldiers in the standing armies began to be fitted with smart uniforms embellished with stars and gold braids. They glorify the killers with statues and monuments. And stories are told of their exploits i.e. of the murders they committed. Eternal flames burn over their graves.

17. In peace times they were made to parade in their smart uniforms, proudly showing off their skills at marching with precision like so many mechanical brainless robots. And indeed their brains had nothing in them other than thoughts of killing. The leaders are so proud and the girls are thrilled at the sight of these brainless killers.

18. They were continuously trained in killing people, not necessarily enemy soldiers. There were elite troops, equipped with the best weapons, and trained to kill in the most hideous ways. They were taught how to creep up to an unsuspecting victim and slit his throat. There was no thought about the victim being as his attacker, most likely with wife and children, brothers and sisters. There was no thought that a moment ago he was alive and breathing, just like his attacker. He must be killed because he was the enemy.

19. These elite forces troops invariably undergo a psychological cange. They became killers, pitiless killers. They look forward to wars so they can put their killing skills into practise.

20. But for years there may be no war. They retire and try to take up civilian life. But they are trained murderers. The forces have released murderers in the midst of ordinary people.

21. They will find difficulty to adjust. Hardened and trained to look at killings as a vocation, they either become criminals, murderers or psychopaths.

22. Those soldiers who had to serve on the war front, fighting and killing and witnessing the horrors and becoming immune to the sufferings of others cannot but become psychopaths also. They would find difficulty to adjust to civilian life. They may become mentally deranged.

23. In todays war waged by the U.S. the soldiers may be exposed to radiation, if not from nuclear explosions, perhaps from handling shells etc coated with depleted uranium. They will suffer from radiation sicknesses, from cancer.

24. The people who sent these young people to fight their wars will be safe. They will eat well, drink well, and enjoy life’s luxuries. It is the young who will suffer, who will pay the ultimate price.

25. The novelists, the television and film producers will concoct glorious stories of war and heroes. It does not matter if they are blatant lies. It is good for making money. The U.S. lost the war in Vietnam but on the cinema and TV screens Rambo would single-handedly defeat the whole Vietnamese army. And the Americans and their allies just love it. They would feel so proud seeing the exploits of Rambo on the screens.

26. And youngsters would be taken in with the pictorial glory depicted and would be persuaded to join the killers in the armed forces, to gloriously kill and wound the enemies.

27. The leaders of the countries with the finest team of killers equipped with the best arms would not hesitate to send their young people to their death based on fabricated lies. That was what happened in Iraq. But the people of these countries re-elected these liars so they may continue to send the cream of their young people to their death.

28. That is what war really is ? not a glorious struggle for democracy and human rights, but merely to satisfy the crazy ambitions of lying leaders of the powerful countries. In the old days leaders and generals lead from the front. The cowardly leaders of today stay clear thousands of miles from the front, sipping wine and gorging themselves on the finest food.

29. Even as we talk here, wars are going on in several places initiated by the bullies of the world. People are being killed and maimed. We need to make quick progress with the criminalisation of war.

30. It will not be easy of course. William Wilberforce spent 20 long years to get the British Parliament to outlaw slave trading nearly 300 years ago. But slave trading is nothing compared to the killings and the breaches of basic human rights in modern war. This is not to say that slavery and slave trading are less heinous than war. But the struggle against war is far more serious because every day newer killing machines are being invented by the rich and powerful in order to kill more people. And the urge to try out these machines is very strong.

31. Actually, these new weapons are bankrupting the nations of the world. To recover the cost of research, development and production these advanced countries are selling their weapons to countries which can ill afford them.

32. As soon as the weapons are sold to the poor, newer weapons would be invented or the previous weapons would be modified and updated. Then the arms salesmen would come again. If a country refuses to buy, a neighbouring country would be persuaded to buy. Then the salesmen would return to the first country and broadly hint that if it does not buy then its forces would be inferior to its neighbours.

33. Even if the countries are not at war with each other, their military personnel would feel unhappy if they cannot have the new toys. And so money that the poor can ill-afford would flow to the rich countries. As the weapons are upgraded and newer weapons invented the flow of money to the rich would become a deluge. The poor will get even poorer.

34. The worst part is that the poor countries will probably have no occasion to use the sophisticated weapons. Yet they have to be maintained at high cost while they give no returns at all to the poor nations.

35. The arms trade is destroying the economies of many poor countries. Yet the exporting countries are not benefitting either. They have to continue investing in research and development of newer and efficient killing machines. The cost will mount and keep mounting as the new technologies and innovative designs require even more sophistication and expensive material. And if the powerful countries go to war, as America has done in Iraq, the cost to the country is mind-boggling. The cost of the war in Iraq for the U.S. is estimated by Joseph Stiglitz the Nobel Laureate to be more than US$ 3 trillion dollars so far. It is going to go on gulping more and more money. Even the U.S. cannot afford to lose this amount of money, especially when victory has not and will not be achieved. Imagine what we can do for the poor and the sick of the world with just a fraction of the 3 trillion.

36. And the whole world is suffering also. Everyone has to spend more money on security, air travel is no longer safe, and lots of money have to be expanded on checking the so-called Muslim terrorists. Far from war against Iraq resulting in the spread of democracy in the Middle East, it has brought about the spread of instability and insecurity to the whole world.

37. War is truly not an option in this modern world. The militarily powerful such as the US and European countries cannot win any war, their sophisticated and costly weapons notwithstanding. This is because the defeat of the enemy, no matter how weak, will not end in victory for the winner. The Governments may surrender and sign a peace treaty but the people will not. They will continue to fight with whatever means they have. Bitter over their countries’ defeat and occupation they will not stop fighting.

38. Against these people all the modern weapons, the helicopter gunships, missiles, bombs, rockets, stealth aircrafts and jet fighters, special forces, tanks, warships are quite useless. Once in a while the nationalists might get lucky and destroy a multi-million dollar aircraft and tank.

39. In Vietnam the powerful U.S. military was soundly thrashed by pyjama-clad Viet peasants until the U.S. ran away helter-skelter. In Afghanistan the Taliban successfully confined the NATO forces to certain towns only. In Baghdad, the American and British forces have achieved none of the objectives. Killing Saddam had not resulted in ending the war. “Shock and Awe” have not overawed the Iraqis and forced them into submitting.

40. Surge and new forces have cost more money and more deaths of U.S. soldiers, more mental diseases amongst them with no sign of bringing the war to an end or making Iraq a successful democracy.

41. The rich countries may come up with all kind of costly weapons capable of killing more people efficiently but all these weapons will not win wars against the people determined to fight and preserve their independence.

42. Perhaps the weapons, including nuclear weapons can be employed in a war amongst the militarily powerful. Perhaps they cab be used by the U.S. and Britain against Russia and China. They may be able to pulverize these countries but these countries would also wreak havoc in the aggressor countries. In fact the whole world will be destroyed by war between the powerful countries.

43. The rich and militarily powerful countries should take note of this. All their money, weapons and tactical skills will avail them of nothing. They will lose fighting against the countries weaker than them, and they will suffer death and destruction if they fight against countries which can match their military capability. In the end, they would still achieve nothing.

44. Clearly war is no longer an option, not just because of the massive death and destruction that modern weaponry can inflict but also because the cost of war has gone up so much that even rich countries like the U.S. can be bankrupted. As Joseph Stiglitz has computed the war in Iraq has so far cost the US $ 3 trillion dollars. The U.S. is bankrupt and this war will prevent the U.S. from ever settling its debts. Of course it can just not pay. That is the prerogative of the strong. The belief that the might is right still holds.

45. But as I pointed out, because of the virtual arms race caused by the high pressure sales tactics by arms salesmen, other countries have also become financial strapped. Indeed the whole world is now heading for financial disaster partly because of investing in ever more sophisticated and ever more costly arms. And for what? They are never going to win any war with these weapons.

46. The rise in oil prices are connected with war. And oil prices affect the process of all goods. In other words, the increase in oil prices brings about inflation. The poor of this world will be the ones most affected. But the rich will suffer also. We are seeing this happening now.

47. The wars will be clearly bankrupt the world. And yet the wars will solve none of the problems of humanity, none of the conflicts between nations. The cost in human lives and property is literally killing.

48. Looked at from any angle, war is a great waste of everything. So why are we still going to war? Why are we still killing people and destroying wealth when we are not getting anything from our wars?

49. We claim to be civilized. How civilized is a society where duels and killings are legally accepted as a way of settling quarrels. Would justice be served when the winner usually is the one skilled in killing? The end result must be a society of killers

50. Yet war between nations is actually duel on a grand scale. Seventy million people were killed in the Second World War. Property that was worth trillions of dollars were destroyed. The Allies proclaimed the winners. But what have the winners got to show for all these? Was justice served? Were the people killed brought back to life? Was the huge sums of money expended recovered? Was there any profit for anyone?

51. The answer to all these questions must be resounding “NO”. No one gained anything from war. Everyone lost. And the cost in human suffering is inmeasurable.

52. We cannot claim to be civilized when we kill and destroy in order to prove how right we are or how just and fair we are.

53. How long more are going to do this? We are already capable of destroying the whole world. Must we wait until we do this before we stop, before we declare wars as illegal and the people who initiate wars as criminals? By that time you must agree it would be too late. War must be stopped now. War must be regarded as a crime. The people and especially their leaders who resort to war in order to settle disputes between them and others must be regarded as criminals, must be made to face charges in a court of law and be punished appropriately. Until then let us not claim that we are civilised.

54. I say criminalize war and punish the leaders and the people who resort to war in order to settle disputes with other countries.

The Star
April 27 2008

LONDON: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was left fuming over a last-minute decision to bar outsiders from attending his talk on war crimes at Imperial College here on Friday.

The former prime minister said he regretted any attempt to block his speech entitled Expose War Crimes: Criminalise War at Imperial College.

Scores of Malaysians and non-Malaysians were left stranded outside the Sir Alexander Flemming building in the college when they were barred from entering the lecture theatre hall where the talk was held.

Security guards stationed near the entrance were seen checking for Imperial College identification cards before allowing them in.

During his speech, Dr Mahathir said he believed that Britain was a country where free speech was upheld.

“I’m sorry that it didn’t look very free today,” he added.

One of the organisers of the talk, Faizal Fathil said they were only informed of the restriction at about 6pm on Thursday.

“We had expected about 700 people but only a maximum of 320 could attend the talk,” said Faizal.

Despite the hiccup, Dr Mahathir was his usual self as he spoke about the qualities of a good prime minister.

“He must fulfil his vows in looking after the people and not be interested in what he gains for himself,” he said.

On Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s concern that the transition of power now would affect the Barisan Nasional, he said this would happen.

On the contrary, he said, the Barisan would not have enough time to recover for the next general election if the change of leadership was delayed.

“And the people who voted for the Opposition will remain with them,” he said.

Dr Mahathir also advised the world to “go back to bows and arrows” instead of pumping massive funds into defence spending.

He said, for instance, just a fraction of the reported US$3 trillion spent by the United States on the Iraq war so far could go a long way in helping the world’s poor and sick.

Replying to a question on Malaysia’s defence spending during his term of office, Dr Mahathir said he regretted it very much.

“But today, questions would be raised if you don’t buy fighter planes and your neighbour buys one,” he said.

KEYNOTE ADDRESS BY
TUN DR MAHATHIR BIN MOHAMAD
AT THE 1ST INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE BY CENTRE FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION STUDIES (CDIS)
IN HAVANA, CUBA
ON 21 APRIL 2008

1. Security is a problem for every country and every region. Whether the security is seriously threatened or not depends largely on the perceptions of the countries involved.

2. The United States for example believes that its borders with Canada are secure. However to a certain extent its borders with Mexico are considered to be less secure.

3. Why the difference? Historically the United States was responsible for seizing large chunks of Mexico and since then the Mexicans had several times tried to get back some of its territory. And so there was and probably still is a security problem in North America.

4. Asia is a very big continent and different parts of it experienced different very different problems through the ages. During the period of the Great Games of the Europeans, there were constant threats of conquest and colonization. In fact many parts of Asia, East, Central, South and West were colonized or hegemonised by powerful European nations.

5. But what about Japan? Did it not try to conquer East Asia? Will it not repeat its aggression? Will East Asia be secure from Japanese territorial ambition? Will China and Korea feel secure with Japan’s amendment to its constitution to allow it to go to war again?

6. Then there is Russia, the conflicts in South Asia and of course the intractable conflicts in West Asia or the Middle East as it is referred to by the West. All these can undermine the security of Asian nations.

7. The culture of Asia differs from that of Europe. Their concept of empire does not involve conquest and the setting up of colonies. The Turkic people advanced westwards and established states in Central and West Asia, advancing even into Europe. But by and large the Turkic people adopted the culture of the local people and were absorbed.

8. The Mongols conquered much of Asia and again advanced into Eastern Europe. More than the Turkic people the Mongols allowed themselves to be assimilated by the local people. In the Turkic countries they became Turks, in China they became Chinese and in India they became Indians. They have no colonies as understood by the Europeans.

9. The Japanese did try to conquer China and Korea. But it was at the time when they were trying to emulate the Europeans. Had they succeeded there would perhaps be Japanese colonies in East Asia and Southeast Asia. But they failed and the lesson is well learnt by them. Japan by itself is not a threat to anyone’s security.

10. Other than these there is no history of military conquest and colonisation by Asian countries in Asia. The Asians of the past preferred to carry out raids and to cart away the spoils of war. But for a long time now the Asian powers have not indulged in military adventures.

11. But America has been telling Asian countries that they have a serious security problem. They have been telling us in South East Asia (S.E.A.) ever since World War II ended that we face the threat of Chinese invasion.

12. They fought a long war in Vietnam and promoted the domino theory ? which says that if Vietnam fell to the Communists than one by one the countries of S.E.A. will fall to the Chinese ? through Communism.

13. Well, South Vietnam did fall to the Communist. But none of the S.E.A. countries have gone the way of Vietnam. In fact Vietnam has now adopted the strategies of the S.E.A. countries and is inviting foreign investments which have made Vietnam the fastest growing East Asian country after China.

14. The threat from China and the Communist ideology did not materialise. But the United States is still insisting that we need its 7th Fleet to provide security for us.

15. S.E.A. is the home of the Spice Islands. For almost a millennium S.E.A. states traded with the Asian countries like China, India, and Arabia. Despite the fact that we South East Asians used to levy taxes on trading ships passing through our waters something which the Europeans describe as piracy, the home countries of these Asian traders, powerful though they were, never sent their military forces to punish us, even when some of their people were killed.

16. But when the Europeans finally reached us in their armed merchantmen, they demanded trade monopoly and the right to build fortified trading stations on our land. After that they came with their armed force to conquer and colonise us. The Portuguese occupation of Malacca is a good example. They came for the first time in 1509 and two years later an armada under Alfonso de Albuquerque conquered Malacca. We can say the Europeans brought a security problem with them.

17. China was a huge country with millions of people and located only 2000 kilometres from Malacca, but they never threatened our security and certainly they never conquered us.

18. Portugal was 12,000 miles from Malacca (via Cape of Good Hope) but they actually attacked the tiny state and made a colony of it.

19. China has no history of military conquest with the purpose of acquiring territory. So why should we feel insecure because of China, as we are informed we should. We really do not think that China poses a security threat in East Asia, not even Japan should see in China a threat to its security. Yes, what about Tibet?

20. Well, what about Guantanamo Bay? Has it always been a part of the United States of America? The Chinese have more rights to be in Tibet than the Americans in Guatanamo Bay,

21. The United States has convinced Japan that China is a threat to its security. Therefore Japan must have American military forces based in Japan and paid for by the Japanese.

22. Is there a Chinese threat to Japanese security? There is a dispute over some islands but will China declare war on Japan because of this little island.

23. China has perhaps the biggest standing army in the world. With its new found wealth its military forces are now well equipped. But is it a threat to the security of its neighbours and to the rest of the world?

24. Frankly I do not think so. China knows it needs peace and good relations with the rest of the world if it is going to prosper, if it is going to feed and clothe its 1.3 billion people. Trade with the rest of the world is the only way for China to give its people a decent life.

25. War is no longer an option in the settlement of conflicts between nations. This is because the capacity of modern weapons to inflict death and destruction is so enormous. Additionally war has become prohibitively costly. Even the United States rich as it is said to be, is now practically penniless because of the war in Iraq.

26. China is doing very well without war. What is there to gain for China if it goes to war. Only death and destruction. But of course when the United States persuades Japan and Korea that China is a threat then it must prepare for its defence.

27. Is China entitled to defend itself? Of course it is. When Japan lost the Pacific War the victors imposed on Japan the condition that it may only spend 1% of its GDP on its defence force. In 1945 1% of its GDP was hardly enough to buy uniforms. But today 1% of Japan’s GDP would be more than what Britain spends on its forces. The Japanese Defence Force is now quite big.

28. If Japan can spend 1% of its GDP on defence cannot China spend the like amount on its defence. Surely it is entitled to. And so China’s military forces must be pretty big. Still it will not be as big as that of the United States. With the United States rattling its rockets and nuclear warheads China must spend money on its security needs.

29. So who is causing countries in Asia to feel insecure? It certainly is not the Asian countries. It is the United States, the most belligerent country in the history of mankind.

30. Of course it is not only in East Asia that the United States is creating a feeling of insecurity. Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Iran. These countries feel most insecure. They are being threatened with invasions, shock and awe, regime change etc etc.

31. When countries feel insecure they must find ways to provide for their security. During the Cold War period they could play the two blocs against each other. But now the Cold War is over. So they must possess their own defence capability.

32. There is a belief that the world would be safe so long as the nuclear powers provide nuclear deterrence. But the nuclear powers have shown that they are the source of military threats and not the non-nuclear powers. So the idea of confining nuclear capability to the established nuclear powers does not hold water. These powers have allowed their protégés to have nuclear warheads while preventing the countries threatened by these protégés from having any defence capability at all.

33. That is the situation in West Asia. This had always been a turbulent region, mainly caused by the Great Games played by European powers. Still 60 years ago the Middle East was relatively peaceful.

34. But to solve the Jewish problem in Europe, Palestinian Arab land has been seized in order to create the state of Israel. Since then the violence in that region has escalated with each passing year. And now the violence has spread to the rest of the world.

35. Would there have been Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda if there had been no Israel. The West should not go into self denial. Admit it. Until you admit the truth, that it was the seizure of Arab Palestinian land, and the expropriation of land belonging to Arab owners and the expulsion of the Palestinians from their homeland, until you admit this truth, the problem of the Middle East will not be resolved.

36. Because of the creation of the state of Israel we are plagued by terrorism. Let us be frank and fair. The so-called terrorists are not the only people who blow themselves up with bombs or crash their planes into towers. Whoever creates terror or cause people to be terrified must be classified as terrorists. If we think of the thousands of innocent people who are terrified of being killed or maimed by the bombs, the missiles, the shells and the rockets, in particular those covered by Depleted Uranium then we must conclude that the countries whose armed forces employ these weapons are also terrorists. Indeed they are worse than the few individuals who sacrificed themselves in order to retaliate for the killings of their people and seizure of their land by the terrorist states.

37. The spread of individual terrorism is due to these people possessing no other means to fight the terrorist states. They do not have warplanes, armoured cars and tanks, warships etc to hit back at their enemies. Therefore they have no choice but to tie explosives to their bodies and blow themselves up. Whether they would go to heaven or not is irrelevant, for we know even though we desire to go to heaven we would not blow ourselves up in that way.

38. As to targeting civilians, the terrorists state, also target the civilians which they now call collaterals. More innocent people are killed by terrorist states than are killed by suicide bombers.

39. The real threat to everyone’s security is caused by the people who continually produce new and more efficient weapons. The cost of these weapons have escalated greatly and yet they do not give any return on investment, nor can they contribute anything to society at peace. This fact drives the countries producing these weapons to seek war. Then these weapons can actually be used. That these weapons can destroy whole countries and hundreds of thousands of people is irrelevant. Call them collaterals and forget about them.
40. In order to get a return on their investments, the producers of these very costly weapons have aggressively promoted their sale. Countries have been persuaded to equip their armed forces with these weapons, incurring huge expenditure. If a country refuses to buy than the neighbouring country would be persuaded to buy. Inadvertently an arms race would result. As the weapons keep on being updated, expenditure on arms by poor countries would make them even poorer.

41. These weapons including the warplanes, guns and rocket launchers may only be good for parades. But any conflict with neighbours may end up with wars in which these weapons would be used. The people who sell arms are in fact the people who create insecurity.

42. Apart from the fighting in West Asia, the rest of Asia is quite peaceful. And because we are peaceful we really feel quite secure. This world need not feel insecure because of Asia. What is happening in Asia is a race to give the people of the various countries a good life. Asia is interested in economic development. One after another the Asian countries are turning into factories for the world. To prosper they will not export insecurity through the promotion of their ideologies. Asia wishes to see the world prosper because a prosperous world would become a good market for Asian products.

43. Asia should help stabilize the world. Unfortunately there are countries outside Asia which do not want to see a stable prosperous Asia. These countries threaten Asia’s security and if Asia arms to the teeth it is because of these countries.

44. Asia has not interfered in the internal affairs of other countries. And God knows these countries’ internal affairs, their treatment of their people, their blatant disregard for human rights etc do not bear examination. Asia has every right to publish the ratings in term of various abuses in their countries and let the world be enlightened. But Asian have refused to take the moral high ground, not because we are not qualified to do so but because we believe in the freedom of every country to manage its internal affairs by itself. We believe our security is best guaranteed by a prosper-thy-neighbour policy. We believe when we prosper other people we will not have their problems spilling over into our country. We believe we will enjoy security that way.

22 April 2008

The world need not feel insecure about Asia because the region’s members prefer security that is guaranteed by economic development, said Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

It was not Asian countries that made the West feel insecure, but the West, he said in his address titled Security problems in Asia and their possible impact on world stability at the First International Conference by the Centre for Defence Information Studies in Havana, Cuba, on Monday.

Asians believed that promoting a prosper-thy-neighbour policy would help to reduce problems from coming into their own countries, he said, adding that Asian powers had not indulged in military adventures for a long time.

However, the United States has been telling Asian countries that they have a serious security problem, he added.

Dr Mahathir said the United States had convinced Japan and Korea that China was a threat to their security.

“But is China a threat to the security of its neighbours and to the rest of the world?” he asked.

“So who is causing Asian countries to feel insecure? It’s certainly not the Asians, but the United States, the most belligerent country in the history of mankind.”

Dr Mahathir said the real threat to everyone’s security was caused by people who continually produced new, and more efficient, weapons. They promoted the sale of their wares and thus caused an arms race.

“The people who sell arms are in fact the people who create insecurity,” he said, noting there were countries outside Asia, which didn’t want to see a stable or prosperous Asia.