This said, I think there are some fairly complex questions to be parsed here about the relationship between funding and output for think tanks etc – I’ll be trying to put together a more coherent post over the next day or two, in between grading essays.

Otherwise, it is entirely possible that in 2001 leaders in Malaysia decided for whatever reason (Foreign investment? The change in US administration?) that improving relations with the US would be a Good Thing, and embarked on a 2 point strategy:

(a) hire conservatives ambassadors to the new Administration to tell the Malaysian story;

(b) institute some cosmetic and/or substantial changes that gave Malaysia a better story to tell.

Did that happen? Did other groups also see changes in Malaysia? We aren’t given enough in this story to draw any sensible conclusion (but that won’t stop some folks!).

Or, another view – here is the CSM from Aug 2002, on post 9/11 relations:

Ties with Malaysia have also warmed considerably. Bilateral relations plunged after the 1999 sodomy and corruption conviction of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad’s political rival Anwar Ibrahim in what US officials said was an irregular trial.

But now even the fiery Mr. Mahathir has lined up behind the antiterror agenda, jailing dozens of alleged militants under the country’s draconian Internal Security Act. Earlier this year, he was rewarded with his first visit to the White House in more than a decade.

Fear of militant Islam in Malaysia, stirred up by the terror war, has also helped Mahathir sideline domestic Islamic political opposition. Opponents have alleged that he’s used the terror sweeps to round up legitimate political activists. Mr. Emmers says such issues, though touched on during Powell’s visit, have been getting much less emphasis from the US.

Last point – all the reporter really has is a difference of opinion – here are Heritage scores; Human Rights Watch (no big change up or down); State Dept 2002 (no big change, but one can find positive flickers.)

And Really the Last Bit – the timeline puzzles me. The Heritage 2005 Inex scores are already available, which suggets that the disagreement about the 2002 score described by the WaPo must have been in early 2002, in the full flush of 9/11. The State Dept report I linked to for 2002 is dated March 2003, a year later. That said, the 2001 report is pretty similar.

I didn’t buy a Sunday Times today…after the “Man-dates” article in last weekend’s Styles section (and the attendant discussion thereof here on CT), I was thinking that my $3.50 could be better spent in any number of ways. But I was still wavering, thinking that maybe I’d pick one up before the end of the day…y’know, just for Arts & Leisure, and Real Estate…

Thanks, Donald. You just saved me another $3.50.