Let me comment o­n Not in the name of the Bar by Latheefa Koya, a member of the Malaysian Bar.

I shall preface my comment by emphasising the principle of tolerance underscored by what French philosopher Voltaire has said: "I may not agree with what she has to say, but I shall defend to my death her right to say it."

Having said that, I believe that Latheefa in her comments mistook the trees for the woods; o­ne is living and the other is dead.

As a member of the Malaysian Bar, I do not know Mah Weng Kwai, although I know of him. Mah, as president of the Bar, is merely stating the realistic position of the Bar that I find is quite reasonable, credible and consistent from the pure standpoint of the law, even if the law is the arse that it sometimes is said to be! In short, Mah is merely upholding the rule of law, a position that is patently correct in law.

What he has stated is that if - a hypothetical case - the United States has the support of the members of the United Nations, then the Malaysian Bar, acting according to the rule of law, would support the war against Iraq. While Mah also postulated the strong feeling of the people against any war with Iraq, he stated that any war can o­nly be conducted after all options have been exhausted. That is the position taken in cognizance of international reality.

On the other hand, Latheefa is stating an idealistic position of 'no war' and criticises Mah, as Bar president, for saying what he did. As a 53-year-old dreamer and idealist, I can understand where she is coming from. Of course, no o­ne in his or her right mind will want a war, any war for that matter. And the world has moved o­n to the extent that no war is ever justified. In a nutshell, the concept of the 'just war' or casus belli in Latin is no longer valid. I alluded to international reality, but what is it?

We will be blind not to notice the paradigm shift in the interventionist position of the United States from multilateralism to unilateralism.

During the Cold War period until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the implosion of the former Soviet Union in 1990, the United States forged multilateral agreements such as Nato in Europe and Seato in Southeast Asia, whereby an attack o­n o­ne signatory country is deemed to be an attack o­n all signatory countries.

This was to - and, to some extent, did - prevent the communist states from exporting their revolution, o­ne line of communist ideology that is opposed to the other o­ne that believes in developing what they have. In other words, the communist ideology has two lines - isolationism as opposed to interventionism.

Years after the implosion of the former Soviet Union, the United States - a country that, like the communist ideology, flits between isolationism and interventionism because of the nature of its founding by the inward-looking Puritans and the later influence of the outward-looking Quakers - was already set o­n the interventionist stance after 'the day of infamy' at Pearl Harbor o­n Dec 7, 1941.

The o­nly problem for the United States and the world was Washington's change from multilateralism to unilateralism. In other words, while multilateralism calls for the prior reference to other countries before a course of action, unilateralism frees the United States to act alone o­n its chosen course of action, regardless of the effect that such a course of action may have o­n the world or any country.

The contention between these two different approaches is behind the current American proposal of war o­n Iraq. And this is what the people of the world are up against because people in general do not like to contend with the American arrogance that comes with unilateralism.

This attempt to mitigate American arrogance explains why the countries of the European Union have, with amazing foresight and perception, set up the euro at the Treaty of Maastricht as another reference currency to wrest away the monopolistic position of the American dollar or greenback.

It also explains the rationale behind Malaysia hosting the conference of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). I am sure all, if not most, delegates to the NAM conference know that the unipolar world we live in is not necessarily safer than the bipolar world we had before the Soviet implosion.

There is a grave and urgent need to tame the American eagle so that it will stop using its beak to bite any country it so chooses. And this can be done by moving away from the American greenback - just like what Washington did when it first 'raided' the British pound in the Suez Crisis of 1956.

Simply put, it is just this: If world trade is conducted using the American greenback as the reference currency, then it heightens American control and hegemony. If part of world trade is conducted by using the euro as the reference currency, that part is no longer under American control. By American control, I mean that the United States can actually influence how much, for instance, an oil-exporting country makes through its export of oil by manipulating the value of the American greenback.

So, with respect, people like Latheefa should not just cling to the idealistic position of theirs, noble though this may be, and be better informed so that they are aware of the danger that the United States, in a bid to maintain its hegemonistic position, will unilaterally launch a war o­n Iraq - a scenario that I believe the Malaysian Bar and even Malaysia will oppose vehemently.

I rest my case and trust that my sister-at-law, Latheefa, will appreciate all of the above which have been written off the cuff. Therefore, any mistakes I make will be inadvertent and unintended.