THE UNIVERSITY OF HULL BRITISH FOREIGN POLICY TOWARDS MALAYSIA, 1957-1967 being a Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Hull by Archana Pathak B.A. (Agra University) . M.A. (Agra University) M . Phil (J . N . U ) 'NO' zol di TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements A Research Note A Note on Terminology Abbreviations Preface 1-3 Chapter I British Foreign Policy towards Malaysia, 1957-1967: The Search for a Theoretical Perspective. 4-19 Chapter II The Background to British Foreign Policy toward Malaysia. 22-72 Chapter III British Foreign Policy towards Malaysia, 1957-1963. 73-142 Chapter IV British Foreign Policy towards Malaysia, 1963-1965. 143-192 Chapter V British Foreign Policy towards Malaysia, 1965-1967. 193-247 Conclusion 248-273 Bibliography 274-308 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT'S Dr. Victor FUnnell supervised my doctoral research at Hull University. I am grateful to him for his patience, encouragement, and stimulating comments at every stage of my work. I am also grateful to Mr. Stephen Kirby Who commented on the early draft and gave useful suggestions to improve it. I would also like to record my gratitude to the members of the Hull .Politics Department as a whole for their unfailing kindness and hospitality. I would like to thank Professor Bhikhu Parekh in particular for his invaluable assistance with various problems that arose during the course of my stay as an overseas student in Hull. It is a great pleasure to have this opportunity of thanking the Commonwealth Scholarship Commission and the British Council for not only awarding me a scholarship, but also viewing my tardy progress sympathetically. I am especially grateful to the British Council staff in Hull for always doing their best, particularly during my early days in a foreign country, to make me feel welcome and perfectly at home. Meerut University, in India, has been generous in granting me very extended leave of absence to pursue my research in England. I am very conscious of how much I owe to the Vice- Chancellor there, and to my Head of Department in particular, for the quite exceptional confidence they have both shown in me. My gratitude to all those who have helped me cannot, of course, relieve me of sole responsibility for the conception and execution of this thesis. A Research Note The., former British diplomats and officials Who consented to be interviewed by me showed an extraordinary courage and kindness in discussing the foreign policy affairs in which they themselves were directly or indirectly involved. These interviews were conducted in October — December 1986, at a time when the Spycatcher Trial had just opened and there was widespread uncertainty about the scope and implications of the Official Secrecy Act. It was natural, therefore, that all those to whom I spoke repeatedly insisted, both in correspondence and during discussions with me, that on no account should they be directly quoted. The Official Secrecy Act has also meant that I have been unable to acknowledge their assistance directly. Asterisks in the text, however, clearly mark the points at which my arguments benefited from their responses to my questions. Recently released documents at the Public Record Office have been of immense help in illuminating various points made in the second and third chapters of this thesis. Unfortunately these documents only became available as I was completing the thesis. However my strict schedule did not permit me to make an exhaustive study of this material. My own impression is that the overall interpretation of British Foreign Policy as offered in this thesis will not be radically altered by the subsequent research I hope to do on these documents. A Note on Terminology: Use of the Terms Malaya, Malaysia It should be made clear at the outset that the country was known as the Federation of Malaya from 1948 until 1963. After the merger with Singapore and the Borneo Territories on 16th September 1963, the enlarged federation came to be known as Malaysia. In order to avoid repeated use of the cumbersome construction Malaya/Malaysia, the term Malaysia has been used while making general statements concerning the ten years, 1957 to 1967. See, for example, its use on page 1. However, whenever reference has been made to the specific periods before independence, after independence, and after the formation of Malaysia on 16th September 1963, a distinction has been made between Malaya, the Federation of Malaya, and Malaysia. Finally, the term 'Malay' has been used for the indigenous population apart from hill and tribal people. The term 'Malayan' means everybody living in the Federation of Malaya. After the formation of Malaysia, 'Malayan' has been replaced by 'Malaysian'. Abbreviations AMCJA All Malayan Council for Joint Action. ANZUK Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom (Forces). ANZAM Australian, New Zealand and Malayan Area. ANZUS Australian, New Zealand and United States Treaty. CAB Cabinet Papers. CO Colonial Office Papers. COS Chiefs of Staff Committee. CRO Commonwealth Relations Office. CSR Commonwealth Strategic Reserve. DCC (EE] Defence Coordination Committee (Far Ehst] DEEE Ministry of Defence, Far East (Papers). FARELF Far East Land Forces (British). FO Foreign Office (Papers). MCC Malayan Constitutional Conference. PAP Peoples Action Party. PKI Partai Kamunis Indonesia. PMIP Pan Malayan Islamic Party. FUTERA Pusat Tenagh. Rhayat. RIIA Royal Institute of International Affairs. RUSIJ Royal United Services Institute, Journal of. Errata Page 16, Para I, 5th Line, should read, nationalism in Asia that will not be falsified in Malaya. Whether we consider the relation of nationalism to colonial rule, (not nationalism to colonial rule,). Page 33-34, last sentence on page 33 (continued on page 34) should read: Secondly, even before the Japanese_occupation of South East Asia, the emergence of Japan as a great power had clearly begun to change the balance of power in Asia. As Kenneth Younger pointed out, "Japan had administered the first shock to western supremacy in Asia when she defeated a great EUropean power in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-5; her rapid occupation of Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaya, Indonesia, Indo-China and Burma was the coup de grace." (not Secondly, even before the coup de grace."(99)). Page 91, Para I, 9th Line, Phillip Darby (not Philip Darby, it should be read as Phillip Darby throughout the thesis). Page 97, top line, quote from Cmnd. 264, should end "Her Majesty's Governments in the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand in respect of the assistance which they give to the Government of the Federation of Malaya in its prosecution of the campaign against the Communist terrorists."( 335 ) (not H. M. Government."(335)) Preface In the history of post war British foreign policy, Malaysia occupies a position of unique interest. It holds this position for.- two reasons. In the first place, British foreign policy towards Malaysia offers the extraordinary spectacle of an ex—imperial power not only guaranteeing external security to its former colony, but also actually honouring its pledge, in spite of mounting economic and political opposition to such a policy at home. Indeed, in the course of fulfilling her defence commitments to Malaysia, Britain even went to the extraordinary length of endangering her own more immediate security interests. The second side of the story is equally interesting. At the height of its involvement in Malaysian security, Britain stationed sixty five thousand armed personnel in the area. However, within a short span of less than two years, their number had reduced to thirty thousand. ( i ) Such troops as remained were pledged to be withdrawn by the end of 1971. From being the major provider of security to Malaysia at the beginning of our period, towards the close of our study we find Britain totally disenchanted with this role and determined to withdraw completely. The magnitude of this change in the British attitude towards Malaysia in particular and South East Asia in general, is clearly a matter of great interest. This interest is further enhanced by the fact that while studying the British responses to the developments in Malaysia, we can also discern the broader pattern of Britain's adjustment to its altered status, i.e. from being an imperial power into a mere European state. (1) Fabian Tract, No.365, "Britain and South East Asia", P.1.and Cmpid 3203: Supplementary Statement on Defence, H.M.S.O., London, July 1967, para. 27, respectively. 1 Clearly, this is a large and ambitious task, and to prevent it becoming unmanageable, or lacking in focus, we must de limit very carefully its precise scope. This may best be done by identif- ying the two different contexts within which British foreign policy towards Malaysia took shape. These contexts can of course only be distinguished analytically; in practice, they overlap and interlock in ways which make their separation impossible. There is, on the one hand, the relatively narrow regional, i.e. South-East Asian, context within which British foreign policy was formulated and pursued. Within this regional context, special attention will be given to British foreign policy considered in its direct bearing on the Malaysian situation. What will particularly concern us here is the decade 1957-1967. The decade began with the grant of independence to Malaya, and almost immediately witnessed the signing of the Anglo-Malayan Defence Agreement (AMDA). As Chin Kin Wah has rightly observed, "This unequal burden treaty, which embodied a -blank cheque' from Britain, had no parallel elsewhere in South Fast Asia". (2) As the decade unfolded, an extended federation was created by the old imperial master and the newly independent ally; then came confront- ation with Indonesia; and the decade closes with the voluntary departure of British forces, which again is an event of far- reaching consequences for British history.