Amidst the climate of confusion (rather than of fear) in the last few weeks as a result of the shambolic response of the Malaysian police to peaceful protests, a friend of mine remarked in exasperation: “Perhaps we can only count on the United States for a regime change now.”

Yes, perhaps. Our next general election is doomed now that Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman, the Election Commission chairman and one of the most trusted lieutenants of Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, seems certain to see his term extended for one more year, and our press and media of all languages are more muzzled than never before.

But to invite the US to bring down this Umno-led government that is famed for cronyism, nepotism, corruption and, I would add, racism?

A shibboleth this idea may be, it is quite entertaining nonetheless. Anyway, let’s have a recap of the post-war political history in Asia and I will leave it to the reader to judge to what extent can the US be of help.

Stephen Kinzer, a former correspondent with the Bolton Globe and the New York Times, writes in his latest book Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq that subverting a foreign government in the name of regime change is nothing new, for it has long been a constant element in American foreign policy since the toppling of the Hawaiian monarchy in 1893 with the help of spies, corporate types and their acolytes abroad.

Indonesia

Much has been written on the atrocities committed by the Indonesian army against civilians during the 1963 military coup. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) played a more than important role in bringing down President Sukarno, who was seen as increasingly friendly towards China and the Soviet Union, the two communist giants at the time.

Major-General Suharto, latterly known as President Suharto, could not have come to power without Washington’s blessing. With him in charge, Indonesia, a promising Muslim democracy in the 1960s, was subjugated to more than three decades of dictatorship in its most brutal form, during which time East Timor was annexed as the 27th province of Indonesia with American weapons.

When worldwide criticism of Suharto grew too loud to be ignored, Paul Wolfowitz, the disgraced former World Bank head and a staunch believer in America’s ‘manifest destiny’, defended his Indonesian ally in the US Congress in May 1997 that “any balanced judgment of the situation in Indonesia today, including the very important and sensitive issue of human rights, needs to take account of the significant progress that Indonesia has already made and needs to acknowledge that much of this progress has to be credited to the strong and remarkable leadership of president Suharto”.

Wolfowitz had better tell this to the severely oppressed East Timorese, Acehnese and other poor Indonesians.

Philippines and Singapore

Now to the Philippines, a Southeast Asian nation that has long been serving as a client state to the US. According to Kinzer, Subic Bay Naval Station and Clark Air Base leased to the Americans became a vivid symbol of American power. They were also highly strategic to the US during the Vietnam War. When Ferdinand Marcos, initially elected as president with popular mandate, closed Congress, suspended the constitution, and began to stifle dissent by putting his political opponents in jail in the early 1970s, Washington lifted no finger to protest. After all, Marcos had won over the successive US presidents, especially Ronald Reagan, with his anti-communist “credentials”.

To be fair, American investors did complain of Marcos’ blatant corruption that had made doing business in the Philippines too costly to be worthwhile, the tyrant remained shielded until the People Power brought his regime to an ignominious end. Marcos had nearly out-served his usefulness to Washington by then. I am not sure if he was thankful to his American friends for the Hawaiian sanctuary that they gave him to spend his last days.

Singapore is no doubt the most valuable strategic partner for the US in Southeast Asia. For more than four decades, Lee Kuan Yew, first as prime minister and then Senior Minister and then Minister Mentor, has tolerated no political opposition. He was shocked to see JB Jeyaretnam elected as the first opposition Member of Parliament in 1981. To punish the bold Singaporeans who had voted for Jeyaretnam, Lee resorted to politically-motivated charges and fines to discredit his opponent, eventually barring him from Parliament.

Still, Singapore remains a faithful ally through and through. In fact, Singapore’s growing involvement in joint defensive military coalitions with Japan, India and the US have far-reaching implications for Asean as a regional grouping. Under the new Singapore-India Defensive Agreement, Singapore’s military forces will have access to airbases and training grounds in India. Besides training, Singapore is going to use India’s premises for its military forces disposition.

Meanwhile, Singapore’s close cooperation with the US and the pro-Washington governments has cast a shadow on the long-term future of Asean, which could even lead to military competition between the US, China and India, thereby undermining Southeast Asia as a zone of peace.

In East Asia, Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek was defeated by the Chinese Communist Party and fled to Taiwan with his dwindling Nationalist troops, which saw the island turned into an “unsinkable fleet-carrier” in the Pacific for the US in the face of the Red Menace. The US-backed ruthless leader nabbed in the bud any sign of opposition, with thousands of political activists rounded up, tortured and even killed. Chiang and his Nationalist government presented themselves to their American master as a ‘beacon of freedom’ vis à vis the communist Mainland, but all the human rights violations committed with the connivance of the US only heightened the resentment and rage of the Taiwanese, sowing the seeds of the independence movement of today.

Chiang’s successor, none other than his eldest son Chiang Ching-Kuo, was shrewd enough to notice the rapidly changing international climate of the 1980s, when communism was at its deathbed. To pre-empt US betrayal, the Junior Chiang removed the ban on political parties and introduced a free press in the island. Most tellingly, he legalized – months before his demise - travel to mainland China by Taiwanese, a move not entirely welcome by Washington at the time. Despite his flaws, the Junior Chiang should rightly be credited with his political farsightedness and democratic vision.

It is widely acknowledged that South Korea is now a vibrant democracy in Asia, and perhaps the most democratic among all, surpassing even Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan. Its elections are mostly free, fair and peaceful. But all this has come at a heavy price.

In 1980, President Chun Doo Hwan sent troops into Chonnam University in the city of Kwangju to quell student protests, killing as many as 200 young lives. The Kwangju incident signified the beginning of the six-year military dictatorship by Chun, and left deep scars on the psyche of all South Koreans.

In the following years, President Reagan embraced Chun like a teddy bear, while turning a blind eye to the hundreds of political prisoners jailed or tortured by the military government. One of the most notorious torture chambers has now been part of the campus of the Korean National University of Arts as an education centre, which I visited two years ago.

The series of massive protests nationwide in the summer of 1986 finally forced Chun from office, paving the way for a new and democratic South Korea. In Asia, the Koreans are among the most faithful consumers of American pop culture and sports, yet this has failed to dampen the fierce anti-American sentiment that can still burn violently at times. The US’ condoning of the past authoritarian regime is imprinted in the hearts of the Koreans.

What about Malaysia?

Forget about the anti-American tone of the Malay press, for it is only for the consumption of a tiny Malay readership. The fact is, Malaya and then Malaysia has been consistently on the side of the US since the 1950s, save for several issues such as Iraq. Even at his most irrational, Mahathir remained a great admirer of America. Granted, the former prime minister was, and still is, habitually critical of the US, he nevertheless recognizes the positive elements of American society, especially when it comes to business and technology, to which he has been very hospitable.

Yes, the US was at one time gravely concerned about Mahathir’s anti-West rhetoric, and could have looked for an alternative in the 1990s (most probably Anwar Ibrahim), but Washington changed course in no time after the September 11 attacks, when the Bush administration decided that Mahathir and Umno were the better devil compared to the unpredictable PAS. Using anti-terrorism as a subterfuge, Mahathir was given a free hand to simply arrest and jail his Muslim critics, mostly but not exclusively PAS supporters. For the first time, the Bush administration was pleased with the man and appreciated his “resoluteness” in rooting out terrorism in Malaysia.

If there has been some change in US-Malaysian relations since Abdullah came to power four years ago, they have only become better. Khairy Jamaluddin, the most famous son-in-law in the country, indeed used his righteous wrath to protest against the visit of Condoleezza Rice over the Palestinian issue, any seasoned American diplomat however knows this is nothing but cheap publicity of a young and ambitious Umno politician. If a former radical Muslim youth leader of the 1970s by the name of Anwar Ibrahim can transmute into a mainstream politician, even calling Wolfowitz “my friend”, who is Khairy?

The US may have criticised the Abdullah government of high-handedness in the serious of massive protests in recent days, a regime change in Malaysia is nevertheless not on the US agenda so long as there is no better and viable alternative to the racist but pragmatic Umno government.

Moreover, unlike Suharto, Marcos and other US apologists who had to be supported financially by the White House and the CIA at American taxpayers’ expense, Umno is able to maintain ‘peace’ and ‘stability’ in the country without the US footing the bill. Abdullah and those behind him have also been clever enough to tar Hindraf with the broad brush of terrorism, what more can the Bush administration – obsessed with combating global terrorism - ask for?

In short, the battle for democracy in Malaysia can only be fought by all Malaysians who desire change, as foreign help, however conducive, has its limits. More importantly, wishing a superpower with global ambitions like the US to do the job for us, we may end up inviting a monster that cannot be wished away for decades to come.