Recently, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad delivered the inaugural U Thant Lecture on "Globalization, Global Community and the United Nations" to a standing room audience at the United Nations University in Tokyo. U Thant, the statesman from Myanmar who served as the secretary general of the U.N. from 1961 until 1971, and is credited with proposing the establishment of the U.N. University, would not have been pleased to hear Mahathir's speech.

Mahathir has been prime minister of Malaysia since 1981. His speech made clear that he is no friend of globalization, at least in its present form. Globalization to Mahathir is an idealistic notion, initially full of promise, that has turned sour. The global push for free and open markets is a threat to sovereignty. Similar calls for transparency and deregulation are capitalist code for no governance at all. Clearly, Mahathir is disconcerted by the economic woes that have befallen the Malaysian economy and vexed by the reforms demanded by the global financial community.

Who are the villains in Mahathir's scenario? His wrath is mainly directed at currency traders, who wield the power to whipsaw economies by speculating in and then dumping currencies on the global market. This is done, according to Mahathir, to "discipline governments" that resist the borderless flow of capital. In other words, the problems faced by developing countries can be traced to the not-so-invisible hand of capitalist power-brokers who make or break economies from the trading desks and boardrooms of New York, London and Tokyo.

Mahathir's solution is as simple as it is extreme. If capital is borderless then populations should be as well. Developed countries who insist on the right to move capital, goods and services freely cannot object when underdeveloped countries demand a similar right to export the poor who are dispossessed by globalization. Mahathir understands and is not afraid to strike verbally at the Achilles heal of the rich. But he does not deny that harsh international criticism results, at least in part, from government mismanagement, corruption and cronyism. Correction is required, but he advocates less drastic means in the form of "gentle and selective lowering of borders."

Mahathir is clearly a bright man and an eloquent speaker. If the mission of the U.N. University was to provoke controversy, selecting Mahathir for the inaugural lecture was an inspired choice. That there is a measure of uncomfortable truth in his message cannot be denied. History is replete with unfortunate lessons regarding the consequences of unchecked capitalism. Mahathir's words, however, leave a lingering feeling that there is more here than a concern for the impact global forces have on domestic economies. Lurking beneath the surface is the reality that globalization brings with it sometimes unwanted demands for political and social freedom.

Economic freedom raises populist expectations of freedom in other parts of society. These forces once unleashed are virtually impossible to control. Indeed, market forces are widely recognized by the human rights community as being a powerful engine for social change. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights groups economic, political, social and cultural rights together as indispensable elements of human dignity and development. Moreover, international law recognizes that countries can and should use foreign aid as an instrument for promoting human rights.

When Mahathir's message is scrutinized in this context, his strong negative stance toward globalization makes sense. Malaysia has been cited by human rights advocates for its politically repressive practices. The former deputy prime minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim, was convicted and imprisoned on politically motivated sodomy charges after a trial that many observers believe was unfair. His true crime was daring to challenge the Mahathir government. The police have also not hesitated to use violence to break up peaceful demonstrations in support of Anwar and political reform.

The government has freely used repressive laws such as the Printing Presses and Publications Act and the Internal Security Act to stamp out dissent. The ISA is especially repugnant because it allows indefinite detention without charge or trial. Almost two months to the day before Mahathir's lecture at the U.N. University, four Malaysian nationals, including a leader from the opposition National Justice Department and a journalist, were reportedly imprisoned for two-year terms under ISA detention orders.

Mahathir closed by standing on his right of free speech to speak out against the evils of globalization even though his views might not be popular. The irony of using the prestigious U.N. University forum to speak freely while brave men and women are imprisoned in Malaysia for demanding no less of a right should not be lost on his listeners. Mahathir's legitimate arguments against unregulated globalism would carry more moral force if they were not tainted by his government's suppression of domestic dissent.