By John R. Malott

Note: The author, a former career Foreign Service Officer, was US Ambassador to Malaysia, 1995-1998.

It would be easy to dismiss Amy Ridenour’s op-ed, “Turmoil in Malaysia” (August 15), as a hatchet job, given the way it seeks so blatantly to portray jailed former Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim as a radical Islamic fundamentalist, hell-bent on following in the steps of Iran’s Khomeini and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Ms. Ridenour paints a portrait of a man whose Islamic faith by definition must mean he is filled with “ferocious and fanatical hatred” of the West. In its entirety, the article implies that Anwar is some kind of crazed, anti-American, terrorist-loving Muslim.

Ridenour shockingly brings forth every racist, anti-Muslim stereotype there is and then advises us not to be fooled by Anwar and what is happening in Malaysia today. “It is a tragedy of history that dictators often seize power by exploiting popular movements,” she writes.

As a former U.S. Ambassador to Malaysia, let me simply say that Ms. Ridenour is woefully misinformed about the political situation in Malaysia, and also about Anwar and the goals of his reform movement.

First, there are many people who believe that one man already has seized political power in Malaysia -- but it is not Anwar, who suffers in jail. A respected Malaysian intellectual, Harun Rashid, recently wrote, “Malaysia is not a democracy. All the principles of democracy have been lost.…No one will object when police power is misused to stage show trials…. There is no freedom of the press. The press is owned and controlled by the [Government’s] parties and no dissent is allowed.”

In the past few months, political opponents of Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed’s Government have been arrested under a law the former British colonial Government wrote to fight communist guerrillas. They have been sent to prison for two years – without trial, without evidence, and without access to legal advice. One is simply asked to take the Government’s word that anyone with the courage to criticize it is a threat to national security.

There is no question that Prime Minister Mahathir has become increasingly authoritarian in his ways and intolerant of dissent. In its most recent human rights report to Congress, the State Department documents the restrictions on freedom of speech, press, and assembly. For the past three years, the Committee to Protect Journalists has labeled Mahathir one of the world’s “Top Ten Enemies of the Press,” along with Castro, Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and the Ayatollah Khameini of Iran. Freedom House says clearly that the press in Malaysia is “not free.” Reporters sans Frontieres, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International all have produced extensive reports that document the lack of political freedom in Malaysia today.

The irony is that far from being a closet Taliban-style radical and rabidly anti-West, Anwar has been accused by Mahathir and his supporters of being a CIA agent, a tool of the IMF, and worse.

And to the contrary, it is Mahathir who spends his days bashing the United States, blaming his country’s financial woes on Wall Street and the Jews, and embracing Castro.

Anwar is not “America’s boy.” But he does believe in democracy. He regularly quotes from Tocqueville as well as democratic thinkers from India to the Philippines.

He also believes in Islam, but a tolerant Islam. He once quoted the Koran to me, “ God made man in all different colors so we can learn from each other.” He believes strongly in his religion, but Anwar’s Islam seeks to embrace rather than divide. It seeks to find common ground among people of different views. This is the Anwar that all of us know, whether you live in Tehran or London, New York or Jakarta.

Finally, the goals of Anwar’s reform movement are simple. They do not seek to overthrow the Government through violent revolution. They want the right to speak their opinions freely, without fear that they will be arrested. They want the right to distribute their newspapers and publications freely. They want access to the Government-controlled press, television, and radio. They want the right to assemble and campaign openly, without the police using water cannon and tear gas to disperse them. They want free elections, where they do not need police permission to hold a rally. They want their leader released from prison – where he sits after a trial whose fairness has been condemned by bar associations and legal observers from around the world.

In the year 2001, this is not radical or revolutionary. These are the rights that most of the world enjoys.  Thomas Jefferson would understand Anwar, and so would Ronald Reagan.  Why doesn’t Ms. Ridenour?