On the 27th July 2026, Executive Director of Citizens International had the opportunity to join Gerard, Executive Producer at Bernama TV, to discuss Citizens International‘s criticism of recent threats made by US lawmakers due to Malaysia’s immigration policy concerning Israel
—and, more importantly, why Non-Alignment remains the best framework for understanding Malaysia’s position.
Imran argued that Non-Alignment, from its very inception as a foreign policy doctrine, 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐩𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐞𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞. Nor does it mean lacking an opinion about who the aggressor or the victim is.
Instead, 𝐍𝐨𝐧-𝐀𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. It is about ensuring that countries can formulate their own foreign policies based on their own principles and national interests—not on the geopolitical demands of competing great powers.
Malaysia’s longstanding policy of not recognising the State of Israel or the Zionist regime should be understood within this framework.
It is fundamentally about upholding a sovereignty that has long been denied to the Palestinian people through repeated violations of international law and humanitarian principles.
As Prime Minister Dato’ Seri Anwar Ibrahim aptly put it, Malaysia pursues “𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬, 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬.”
That distinction is critical.
Malaysia’s solidarity with Palestine is not simply because it is Palestine, nor is our criticism of Israeli policies because it is Israel or because of Judaism.
Our position is a 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐰, 𝐦𝐚𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡 𝐌𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐚’𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐜 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 not at the behest of any external power.
He also stressed that Non-Alignment should not be confused with being anti-West.
If Non-Alignment sometimes appears to challenge Western powers, it is often because many policies originating from the Global North have sought to constrain the sovereign policy space and autonomous development of countries in the Global South.
The objective of Non-Alignment is simple:
➡️ To preserve every nation’s freedom to make its own decisions.
➡️ To protect sovereign policy space.
➡️ To allow countries to pursue their own developmental pathways without constantly calibrating their choices to the preferences of major powers.
More than seventy years after the Bandung Conference, I believe these principles remain just as relevant—perhaps even more so—in an increasingly fragmented and multipolar world.
