Aggressive Foreign Policy: What Sudetenland and Falklands have in common with Limbang
Sudetenland was and is an epitome of how an aggressive policy worked to infuse nationalism to its extreme, as well as a popularity boost for a leader. Of course, Hitler had been abusing this form of policy for expansion – capitulating the entire world into the Second World War. But nonetheless, the wary nation was united behind the Fuhrer once the battle was over – giving Hitler an immense boost of ego and self-deifying.
Another practitioner of aggressive policy was Thatcher’s Britain. Facing extreme unpopularity over her use of force against protesters as well as her patronizing attitude over the issue of racial inequality – war was what saved her career. Falklands, most often cited as the last stronghold of colonial Britain – which was attacked by an undemocratic Argentina rallied the British people behind Thatcher. Thatcher won the next election – mostly due to her prompt and crisp response to the crisis.
As we can duly observe , in both crisis the aggressor is not an aggressor in the eyes of the people – primarily because it has been portrayed that the people are actually being oppressed by a foreign entity. The leader’s reaction is deemed as a necessity to protect the people from aggressors. It arouses the primal “us against them” notion within the people’s subconscious. Not only that, it also promises a definite and considerable quick answer to an old and unfruitful conflict.
These ‘aggressions’ are not necessarily total wars in which an entire nation is mobilized, and the whole economic structure is revamped in facing a total war. No. We can still have a normal peacetime economics, yet able to flex our muscle. It can just be a show of power, or a small scale attack (if needed and necessitated) to reinstate or reaffirm one’s border.
Analyzing Limbang
Limbang has and still is, remains a source of confusion and irritation to the people of Sarawak. The fact that Limbang is located somewhere between Brunei’s lands – made transportation, mobilization and thus development slow to come. Not to mention that there are rumours circulating among the locals regarding the re-unification of Limbang with Brunei. This particularly caused discomfort among the locals of Limbang, particularly those who were raised in an independent Sarawak, within the Federation of Malaysia.
What could the state government do? Perhaps it is about time that the state leadership took up a brave stance to develop and fortify Limbang. The mobilization of troops would definitely cause uneasiness within Brunei’s palace, and not to mention a deteriorating relationship in the near future. International media too would be eager to calculate and judge our next action.
But this however, would have a positive impact on the current government – which is currently losing its confidence among the new voters. Information Ministry would have to feed the public and the world of the ugly condition of living in Limbang. The difficulty to feed the people as well as sovereignty problem would make the people see the necessity to have a hardline stance regarding Limbang. Rumours of the state leadership bartering the rakyat for profit with Brunei would be laid to rest. Rumours of development being halted because of the uncertainty of sovereignty would definitely being laid to rest too. One thing would be made clear to the people: “forget history, forget claims and counterclaims. The people in Limbang are suffering because of border and immigration proble. People First, History Later!”
What follows next is also vital. A route linking Miri to Limbang would have to be considered urgently. The state leadership must be portrayed as a leader who seeks to defend his people – come whatever may. This would (and should) be followed with the eradication of hardcore poverty in Sarawak – by involving everyone; government and opposition. An objective should be set – and all MPs and ADUNs in Sarawak must strive in fulfilling this objective. This should be made (and promoted) as a “true litmus test of a Sarawakian MP/ADUN”. All are given free hand to eradicate poverty in their constituency, thus ensuring a form of competition. Business engagement too would be vital, as they would be playing a vital role in eradicating poverty.
Relationship with Brunei could be mended later, once all the brouhaha is over. True, ASEAN may be fractured – but the fact that the media was able to portray the urgency and the need for the state government to serve and protect the people would definitely make Brunei slightly unpopular among other ASEAN members. Other then that, being a monarchic country made them twice unpopular. Malaysia and other key-players of ASEAN such as Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and Singapore could bond together in creating an inner circle within ASEAN – based on the principles of democracy. This would further put pressure on the Brunei monarchy – as its administration is still tied up to a living monarchy. Other then that, the revelation of the monarch’s relative’s eccentricity and exuberance would definitely make the country even less popular.
So, a struggle with *Poni? Why not? After all, Limbang is Sarawak – and Sarawak cannot exist without Limbang.
*Poni was Brunei’s former name.
