American lobbyist Jack Abramoff's goal to improve Malaysia's public image was made more difficult by the actions being taken in Malaysia.

In April 2001, the police arrested 10 opposition activists, including eight leaders of Parti Keadilan Rakyat, of which former deputy premier Anwar Ibrahim was adviser.

Among those arrested were malaysiakini columnist Hishamuddin Rais, and Raja Petra Kamaruddin, the director of the Free Anwar Campaign.

(They also 'arrested' Raja Petra's computer. I believe that is when the government learnt of my role in the international campaign to free Anwar. Abramoff got US$1.2 million for his efforts, but I didn't ask for or take a penny.)

But then came 9/11, and it was a Godsend for Abramoff's strategy. Mahathir saw it as an opportunity to prove both at home and abroad that he was right in cracking down on the Islamic opposition. The Americans were looking for moderate Muslims who were against terrorism, and then prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad clearly fitted the bill.

Mahathir reached out to the US in an unprecedented way. Famous for refusing to meet with foreign ambassadors during their tenure in Malaysia, Mahathir drove to the US Embassy to sign the condolence book for the 9/11 victims, a very touching and appreciated gesture. When the new US Ambassador Marie Huhtala arrived in KL, Mahathir met with her even before she had presented her credentials to the King, another striking action.

Meanwhile, back in the US, Bandow and Ferrara were writing their op-eds praising Malaysia as a potential ally in the war on terror. Islamic groups in the US, traditionally strong supporters of Anwar, were preoccupied with their own concerns post-9/11.

The idea that American didn't care about Anwar anymore - and that only the war on terrorism mattered - was reinforced when James Kelly, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs, visited Kuala Lumpur in April 2002. He never raised the Anwar issue, and admitted so during his press conference.

So the political word in Malaysia was: the Americans have forgotten about Anwar. Mahathir is now in their good graces; the Americans finally recognise his wisdom and leadership.

Uncomfortable moment

Mahathir was just a month away from meeting with US President George W Bush. What is sometimes called 'Newton's Law of Washington DC politics' now came into play - for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction. Human rights groups and others, myself included, weighed in.

We understood why Bush was meeting with Mahathir. He was a moderate Muslim and anti-terrorist. And from my own experience, I knew that the Malaysian and US Governments co-operated closely in opposing terrorism, something that the Official 9/11 Commission later revealed in its report.

But at the same time, it was important that America not forsake its principles as it fought the war on terror.

It was Bush who said in his State of the Union speech to the Congress just four months before: "America will always stand firm for the non-negotiable demands of human dignity: the rule of law; limits on the power of the state; respect for women; private property; free speech; equal justice; and religious tolerance.

"America will take the side of brave men and women who advocate these values around the world, including the Islamic world, because we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror."

We pointed out that Bush had to stand by what he said, or it would be just rhetoric. If he didn't talk about Anwar, it would mean that his speeches were just hot air.

When Mahathir got into the White House in May 2002, it probably was a very uncomfortable moment for him as he sat next to Bush as this exchange occurred:

Q: Mr. President, I'd like to know whether it's still the position of the United States that Anwar Ibrahim has been jailed primarily for his political opposition to the Prime Minister? ...

Bush: What was your second part of your question?

Q: The question was, Mr. President, is it still the position of the United States that Anwar Ibrahim, the former finance minister...

Bush: Yes.

Q: ...was jailed primarily for his political opposition to the Prime Minister? Or do you believe - and do you believe he should be released?

Bush: Our position has not changed.

So there went US$2 million and months of effort down the drain.

No wonder the Malaysian government dropped Abramoff from its payroll.

Back to normal

After that, Mahathir's attitude towards the US reverted to his more traditional anti-American stance.

Two months after the White House visit, human rights groups and Anwar supporters in the US put Secretary of State Colin Powell on the spot as he planned his July 30, 2002 visit to KL.

Do you support the President's public commitment to "brave Muslim democrats" like Anwar or not? Powell showed that he did. He said he raised the issue with Mahathir and called Anwar's trials "flawed".

His assistant Jim Kelly, who had failed to talk about Anwar on his previous visit, made amends by having breakfast with Anwar's wife Azizah at the US Ambassador's residence, with a very public photograph released to the press. The point was made.

The Bush Administration's movement towards war with Iraq during 2002 further provoked Mahathir (and many others in the US and around the world), and Mahathir's rhetoric became tougher. After Bush launched his war against Iraq, Mahathir - who obviously had been reading up on the neo-conservatives in the US - could take it no more and charged that the US was doing Israel's bidding.

In October 2003 he lashed out and said, "Today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."

A week later Bush said he told Mahathir at the Apec meetings that the remarks were "divisive and unnecessary" and made clear that he found them "reprehensible".

But Mahathir denied that Bush reprimanded him. "I'm now told that Bush said he rebuked me," Mahathir was quoted as saying in the New Sunday Times. "That is the biggest lie of all."

Things were back to normal between the US and Malaysia, and the whole US$2 million effort to change American opinions was a failure. But in any event, it didn't matter. Abdullah Ahmad Badawi became Malaysia's prime minister later that month.

Why propaganda failed

When Badawi visited Washington in July 2004, he addressed the US-Asean Business Council. I was there, and the atmosphere and buzz in the room among the Americans was quite remarkable. Everyone commented that Malaysia clearly was "under new management" and that US-Malaysian relations had never been better. There was a very warm feeling in the room.

With Anwar's release a few weeks later, the relationship continued to improve. Today it can truthfully be said that the relationship between Malaysia and the United States has never been better, the war in Iraq notwithstanding.

At the end of the day, the Abramoff propaganda campaign was more effective in manipulating Malaysian rather than American public opinion. But Malaysians didn't know something - they were the ones paying for the whole thing, through their taxes and, in the case of the so-called 'Heritage Foundation' money - through companies from whichthey bought services and products.

Why didn't the campaign work in the US? Why did the Abramoff Machine and the Heritage-connected lobbyists fail in their effort?

First, as the saying goes in Texas, "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig". If the underlying situation is bad, no amount of public relations or money can change that. The Bush Administration is learning that lesson as it tries to improve America's image in the Muslim world.

Policies and actions matter far more than public relations. No amount of advertising can sell a bad product. Abdullah changed the tone and the rhetoric of the relationship with America, and it immediately got better. (The same went for Malaysia's relations with Singapore and Australia, two of Mahathir's favourite bete-noires.) It didn't cost a penny.

Second, dictators and autocrats are far more susceptible to the pitches of the Abramoffs of the world than the governments of democratic countries. Because they can control and manipulate public opinion at home, the autocrats think they can do so abroad. But America and other democracies are a market-place of ideas. If Amy Ridenour can write an op-ed, I can write one, too. If Abramoff can put pressure on the White House, so can the human rights groups.

When the Abramoff scandal started to crack, it was all about Native Americans and casinos. I had no idea that those of us who were striving for Anwar's freedom were up against the 'Great Abramoff' and Malaysia's millions. Now we know.

But at the end of the day, we won. Anwar got out of jail, and now Abramoff is on his way there. Malaysia's government and certain businessmen wasted US$2 million dollars, for sure.

But the story still is not over. As Franklin Foer of the New Republic said, "My long-time prediction: This is going to be a big story."


The 'get Anwar' campaign, Part 1

JOHN R MALOTT is former US ambassador to Malaysia.