Apco too has some explaining to do

Many foreign governments sign contracts with American public relations and lobbying firms. So it is not unusual for the Malaysian government to sign a contract with Apco for services in the United States.

In contrast to the Jack Abramoff scandal - when the Malaysian embassy hid its role by making illegal payments to a fake think-tank in Delaware - Apco has registered with the US Department of Justice as agent of a foreign government.

In its official report, Apco says that it is being paid US$70,000 per month, plus up to US$20,000 a month in expenses for the services that it is providing for the Malaysian government in the United States. So altogether, that is about US$1 million per year. That is not an unusual amount for such a contract.

The Malaysian government, however, has said that the value of the contract with Apco is US$24 million (RM77 million) per year. If only US$1 million is being spent in the United States, then what is the other US$23 million (RM74 million) being used for in Malaysia?

Even Najib wondered what he was getting for the money and was thinking about cancelling the contract. According to recent reports, the contract has just been renewed, but at a lower cost and with the right for the government to terminate it at any time.

It still is not clear what specific services Apco is providing in Malaysia. While US law requires Apco to register the contract for services in America for all to see, there is no similar requirement in Malaysia.

According to the prestigious National Journal, Apco's total billings(sales) in 2008 were US$112 million. So the $24 million contract with Malaysia is very important to the company.

As for the contract with Apco for services inside the United States, it says that Apco is supposed to promote Malaysia's image in America and strengthen US-Malaysia ties. That is a positive and appropriate goal. But it has been widely reported in the Malaysian blogs that Apco has been coordinating the attacks on Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim in Washington DC, something that is outside the scope of the contract.

It would be interesting to know whether this is true. What contacts, if any, did Apco have with the B'nai B'rith, New Ledger's Rachel Motte, Joshua Trevino, and others who have criticised Anwar? Was Apco involved in preparing and sending letters to the various influence leaders in Washington to highlight Anwar's comments on 'Zionist aggression'? What advice, if any, did it provide to the Malaysian embassy on these matters?

If so, then Apco has gone beyond the terms of its contract, which is to promote a positive image for Malaysia in the United States, and it now is engaged in a negative campaign against a democratically-elected opposition leader.

I certainly would welcome Apco's clarification on what role it has been playing, if any, in publicising Anwar's comments.

Campaign to shoot the messenger

Attacking Anwar in Washington makes sense if you accept the "shoot the messenger" logic that pervades the Malaysian government. It's the same logic that says you go after the whistleblower rather than investigate the corruption. It's the mentality that says if you don't report something in the press, you might be able to convince people that it never happened.

For example, MP Nur Jazlan (right) Mohamed justified the Apco contract by saying that after Anwar was sacked, "he continued to make use of the international media to paint a bad picture of the country. This led to political instability, and we have continued to suffer in terms of foreign investment."

Nur Jazlan said that Malaysia therefore needs to restore its good image, improve ties with the United States, and "explain the truth to the international community."

In his mind, there is only one "truth" (which is the government's version), and the goal therefore is to counter whatever Anwar has to say about the situation in Malaysia and make sure people understand the one, revealed truth.

But think about foreign investment, which Nur Jazlan raised. Are Malaysia's problems in attracting foreign investment a matter of image and negative statements from Anwar? No.

It has to do with investor concerns about labour and skills shortages, corruption, lack of transparency, the legal system, growing racial polarisation, the lingering image (thanks to Dr Mahathir Mohamad) of Malaysia as anti-American and anti-Western, and so on. It has to do with the attractiveness of other investment locations, compared to Malaysia.

Second point - will Americans ever depend on foreign governments and Apco for their information - what Nur Jazlan calls 'the truth'? No, that will never happen. Americans have an innate distrust of government propaganda, whether from our own government or someone else's.

We accept lobbyists in our political system, but when it comes to lobbying for foreigners, we require lobbyists to register as 'foreign agents', show us the contract, and let us know how much they are getting paid to promote foreign interests.

Third point - is there only one 'truth'? In the world of politics, there is always more than one truth. That is why we - and Malaysia - have political parties and elections. There are newspapers and blogs that support all kinds of views.

There may not be that many Americans in Washington who follow developments in Malaysia, but for those who do, there are now multiple sources of information. The government and the Malaysian embassy and the newspapers controlled by the ruling parties are just one source of information.

There always has been an informal network of information inside Malaysia to add to what RTM and the 'official' newspapers have to say. When I was ambassador, I usually found that what I heard in private on the informal network was 90 percent accurate, and what I read in the New Straits Times was 50% 'missing in action'.

Now, thanks to the Internet, that additional (and usually accurate) information from the rumour mill is available on a global basis through many websites.

In Washington, what the Malaysian embassy and its 'hired guns' are trying to do is straight from the playbook of 'The Master' Karl Rove, former president Bush's political advisor. Smear people. Discredit the person who makes the charges. Divert attention to another issue. Take a complicated issue and dumb it down. Make it emotional. Take someone's strength and turn it against them. Make them controversial.

So Senator John Kerry, a decorated war hero, has to defend his heroism and his medals and his wartime record against George W Bush, who never went to war. Anwar, who for years has taken so much criticism in Malaysia for reaching out to Americans and Jews, now has to defend his words and actions. Anwar, why did you use the words 'Zionist aggression'? Why did you lead a march to the American embassy?

What if Anwar ends back in prison?

Let's assume that Anwar ends up back in jail, or that somehow his influence in Washington DC declines. Will that turn things around for American views of Malaysia?

No, because in the end, actions speak louder than words.

Jailing Anwar again will set back Malaysia's image here, for certain. First of all, that is because Anwar is so well-known here.

Second, this time Anwar cannot be portrayed as a disgruntled, sacked politician. This time, Anwar is the opposition leader.

If the Najib government throws Anwar in jail, it will be seen as an assault on democracy - and it will set back everything that Najib and Apco are trying to achieve in the United States.

In 2006, I analysed another Malaysian government campaign to influence American public opinion and counter Anwar's influence. It was conducted by Jack Abramoff and his associates and involved illegal, hidden payments by the Malaysian embassy

This time around, things are more open. Apco is a sophisticated and long-established company, and its relationship with the Malaysian government, its fees, and the contract it signed are transparent - at least on the American end.

But I still believe that at the end of the day, what I said about the 2006 effort applies to this current one as well:

"If the underlying situation is bad, no amount of public relations or money can change that. Policies and actions matter far more than PR. No amount of advertising can sell a bad product. Because the leaders of autocratic countries can control and manipulate public opinion at home, they think they can do so abroad. But they are wrong, because America and other democracies are a marketplace of ideas."

At the end of the day, I have to ask - why are Najib and Anwar competing for influence in Washington?

The real question is, why should Washington matter at all? Americans don't vote in Malaysia's elections. The Malaysian expatriate community here also is not allowed to vote. So who cares what Washington thinks?

Why does a photo op with President Barack Obama for Najib (or with George W Bush, for Mahathir) matter so much? Why is the Malaysian government spending so much of its peoples' money to get that 'Kodak moment' in the White House?

The real competition - the one that matters - is the one that is going on in Malaysia, for the hearts and minds of the Malaysian people.

article by JOHN R MALOTT, who was the United States ambassador to Malaysia 1995-1998 and is a great fan of Malaysiakini. Courtesy of Malaysiakini