Terrorism must not become a foreign policy tool
Nevertheless, as a fellow Malay myself, allow me to present an alternative view which is anchored on two key fundamentals - foreign policy and empathy.
With respect to foreign policy, the detractors point to the US' staunch support for Israel, the lingering Palestinian issue and unfair Iraqi sanctions, etc., as irrefutable evidence of Uncle Sam's wickedness.
As such, the bloody carnage in the US was rather 'understandable' as the terrorist were also the aggrieved party - victims of 'US aggression' - with no avenue of redress. In short, those who are in cohorts with the 'bad guys' are fair game for these terrorists.
Nevertheless, the US foreign policy is no more as flawed than Malaysia's - and for that matter, any Arab nation's - own foreign policy. Why do our own leaders travel halfway across the globe trying to conjure 'smart partnership' with tin-pot African dictators?
Closer at home, we have strong political and economic links with countries embittered with separatist and civil unrest, such as Burma and Indonesia.
Sudan for instance, is embroiled in a bloody civil war involving the Muslim-dominated regime against the Christian minority rebels. However, despite atrocities committed against the Christians by the ruling regime, our government still finds it fit - under our policy of "non-interference of a nation's internal affairs" - to encourage Petronas to invest billions of ringgit in Sudan's oil and gas sector.
Not surprisingly, this has caused much bitterness to the Christian rebels, who had declared any Petronas infrastructure as legitimate military targets.
Now, going by the concept that those 'in cohorts' with the oppressors, shall also be made to pay, would it also not be justified for the Sudanese rebels to wreak havoc in Malaysia too?
What if they decide to blow up the Petronas Twin Towers in KL, killing thousands of innocent civilians, just to "make a profound global statement" for their cause? This brings us to my second point, which is 'empathy'.
How would we - in all honesty - react to the wanton slaughter of innocent civilians, which may involve our friends and loved ones, by a group of terrorist whose cause we feel is totally alien to us?
Do we sit to ponder the 'cause' of such barbarism and stomach endless pontificating by others - "it's your fault too" lectures and calls for "restraint", "compassion", etc.?
Should the powers that be in Malaysia believe that such scenarios are too far-fetched, they should look no farther than the separatist imbroglio in Aceh, Indonesia.
To date, thousands of Acehnese civilians have suffered in the hands of the Indonesian regime, who are our close allies.
How would we react if GAM, the Aceh separatist movement, with their fair number of hardcore Muslim fanatics and who disdainfully view us as pro-Jakarta, decide to take their fight to our shores, with devastating civilian casualties?
Are we such 'goody-two-shoes' that fanatics would not attack our own mega-monuments to amplify their plight?
My point is this, regardless of the ideal worldview; the reality is that each individual nation's foreign policy rests on the principle of fulfilling its own national interest first.
We can kid ourselves with the "prosper thy neighbour" mantra, but Malaysia would not bat an eyelid to the bloodshed in Sudan or Aceh, lest its economic and political concerns with the ruling regimes are compromised.
This selective double standards in no different from the lopsided support given by the US to the Tel-Aviv regime.
Furthermore, as a result of this 'me-first policy' of sovereign nations, "injustices and oppression" - as pointed out by Dr Mahathir Mohamad as the root of terrorism - shall never be eradicated. This is because they are merely subjective connotations, depending on who is on the receiving end.
Just ask Kuwait - whose country did the invading Iraqi army pillage - whether Saddam Hussein deserves the sanctions meted out on his country.
As such, foreign policy disagreements - which often result in bitterness among nations - are a permanent feature.
As foreign policy is a civil matter, it must be resolved in a civilised and constructive manner via diplomacy, dialogues and negotiations within the ambit of legitimate international forums such as the United Nations, World Trade Organisation, etc.
If that fails, the aggrieved party, as in the case of Arab nations who are the key members of Opec, could institute sanctions against Israel and its benefactor, the US. The OIC, whose member nations populate almost half of the globe, could also follow suit.
As a last resort, a formal declaration of war can be made although recent events, such as the threat of nuclear confrontation between India and Pakistan, were smothered by sanctions.
Truly, terrorism is far sinister than vigilante justice of what the US is now accused of. Without a formal declaration of war, terrorists could inflict horrendous war-like devastation against sovereign nations with impunity.
What's worse, after committing such craven acts, they could then use the cloak of individual rights and seek refuge with their patron nation. This could be seen in the PR campaign conducted with panache by both the Taliban regime and Osama bin Laden, by asking for irrefutable proof before acceding to any US request.
Such "irrefutable proof" - a standard burden of proof accorded to individuals - is the best defence for terrorists to evade justice.
We seem to dismiss the trail of mayhem leading to Osama as circumstantial, but just ask Justice Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah (Chief Justice), had he not hung drug offenders on circumstantial evidence alone?
Accordingly, how would we react if the Philippines government decided to ask for incontrovertible proof linking the involvement of Filipino terrorists during the Sipadan hostage crisis not too long ago?
Therefore, it appears that our government's ambivalent stance and a less than concrete support for stern and urgent measures to eradicate terrorism, is coloured by the deep-seated enmity towards the US, particularly over the perceived bias in the Anwar Ibrahim saga, trade issues, etc.
However, terrorism - particularly those that use religion as political capital - is a common enemy to all civilised nations, Muslim or otherwise. This is because the recent cataclysmic events are certainly no "Jihad in a teacup", as some would like us to believe.
Instead, it is imperative that we reflect on the larger and urgent issues at hand. In the face of a common and dastardly enemy, we must dispense with the petty squabbles and partisan sentiments. We must also not be willing apologists for any terrorist acts.
For the sake of the civilised world, terrorism must never be allowed to replace civility and diplomacy as instruments to affect policy reforms. Nevertheless, we must first embrace empathy and discard hypocrisy, for humanity without empathy is humanity in jeopardy.
