It was reported in Star Biz (April 16) that Petronas president and CEO Mohd Hassan Marican had been identified as a possible candidate for appointment by US administration to help manage Iraq's oil industry.

If chosen, it will be seen as high honour for Malaysia in recognition of Petronas professionalism and expertise in management of oil resources.

It may also bring economic benefits to Malaysia by way of possible reconstruction contracts in the future being awarded by the US/UK coalition, as stakeholder of Iraqi oil industry to Petronas from which Mohd Hassan Marican hails.

According to Financial Times and Independent , the Bush administration is looking to appoint an experienced oil executive from a moderate Muslim country for the top job. Indeed by any standard, Malaysia is counted as a moderate and progressive Muslim country that fits the bill.

But moderate and progressive as we may be, there are two little problems, as I see it

The first problem is that we are o­n record as a nation stridently opposed to the US/UK-led military campaign against Saddam Hussein's regime.

Even now our mainstream papers describe the US/UK-led coalition forces as "invaders" rather than "liberators" and highlight the collateral damage and civilian casualties of the war more than the precision of Coalition's bombing that inflicted civilian casualties of 0.005 percent of population as against over 28,000 bombs dropped.

Indeed our Home and Information Ministries despatched the Joint Media Team Malaysia to Iraq to fearlessly report independently the ravages of the war unshorn off CNN and BBC's 'propaganda'.

Domestically, the Anti-War Peace Movement was rallied by Umno Youth. This is not confined to the ruling party but across the entire political spectrum. Even opposition parties (DAP included) and NGOs are vehemently opposed to the war.

In the international front, our prime minister had, with very limited success, described the war as o­ne against Muslims, lobbied NAM and Opec to oppose the war and to even use the "oil weapon" against the West.

Even Malaysiakini's regular feature writer James Wong Wing o­nn has been berated for "misrepresenting" in the BBC interview that according to anecdotal evidence, o­ne in three Malaysians were not opposed to the war. We have also gone o­n record to criticise aspersions and veiled threats delivered against Syria by some senior members of the US administration.

According to a report entitled "US 'threatened' Malaysia over Iraq", it seems that the US State Department last month warned Malaysia's ambassador in Washington that it might pull its ambassador out of Kuala Lumpur, urge American businesses to leave Malaysia and discourage further investments in Malaysia. But for Acting PM's timely damage control, more dire economic consequences might have ensued.

Under such circumstances why should the US choose 'our man' over (say) the other possible candidate, Algeria oil minister Chakib Khelil?

One must remember President Bush's position that "you are either with the US or against". o­ne recalls the US position, which generally is that if the UN did not support the US/UK war o­n Iraq, it has forfeited its claim to play the leading role in reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq. It is the victors that have spilled blood and taken sacrifices that have the moral right to dictate terms and enjoy first bite of the spoils of victory. The US is unlikely to look favourably to honour pre-existing Saddam's treaties with France, Germany and Russia because they had opposed and vetoed the war at the Security Council level.

By same token, will the US look favourably at a Malaysian candidate when we were the leading nation outside the Security Council that lobbied extensively NAM and Opec to oppose the war?

It seems unlikely: o­ne should not be allowed to oppose a US initiative and subsequently seek to benefit from its outcome. It just does not seem right. If US global hegemony is to be maintained, would be detractors have to be deterred by denial of benefits. Benefit must be justified by price paid and costs incurred for the reward or at least support for US actions.

There is however yet another second problem even if, for whatever reason, unfathomable to me, the US should happen to be inclined to look favourably at Hassan Marican.

He, being a top representative of our national oil corporation, cannot freely accept such an honour of appointment as other CEOs of corporations may do. The appointment has to be sanctioned by the Malaysian government and it is a political decision.

The question is: after taking such a high profile anti-war stance against the US/UK coalition in their Iraqi campaign, can the Malaysian government give such a stamp of political endorsement, and yet retain, with consistency, its moral and political ground in opposition to the Iraq war in particular and US global hegemony in general?

I say it will be very difficult for our government to do so without appearing hypocritical at the same time.

Our official stance so far has been to deride the US/UK's purported aim of seeking out and destroying Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. We impute subterranean motives o­n the part of US and UK to sequestrate the oil reserves assets and heritage of Iraq (the second largest in the world) for themselves.

Our newspaper editorial described the proposed interim administration led by former general Jay Garner (and the subsequent o­ne by US-sponsored Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi) as having all the "trappings of a post-invasion colonial administration" (Star Editorial Page 2, April 16).

Don't forget that it is precisely this "post-invasion colonial administration" that will be appointing the top honcho to manage Iraq's oil industry for the benefit of US and UK economic interests.

Can we condemn the US and UK of waging the war with the hidden agenda of marauding, pillaging and sequestrating Iraq's oil wealth and yet dispatch our top executive to help them in that process?

Can we scoff and heap scorn o­n the likes of Exxon and British Petroleum coming into Iraq in the heels of the conquering invasion forces to exploit Iraq's oil resources, and yet harbour recruiting Petronas in the line up of beneficiaries?

If we complain that Haliburton's being awarded the contract of putting out fires in torched oil fields is political cronyism manifest in US administration (by reason of the Dick Cheney's connection), wouldn't Hassan's first task upon appointment, as trustee of Iraq's oil resources, be to abrogate such a contract? Can he do it? If he cannot act against those who appoint him, wouldn't his position be fraught with conflict of interest?

There is also every indication that the US and UK 'cabal' will extend its agenda to continue with application of pressure, whether by military threats or economic sanctions, against Syria and Iran that are Muslim-dominated countries.

If our government's political domestic stance is to oppose the US/UK initiatives and moves in this direction, would it be morally tenable for our government to endorse Hassan's appointment in order to serve as a 'tool' for these imperialistic agenda and derive indirect prestige or largesse out of such appointment?

When the Malaysian government took the first position of opposing the war, whether for high moral reasons or not so meritorious domestic agenda, it should be prepared to reap what it sows and forgo the benefit dispensed in the aftermath by its successful campaigners. This internal consistency is a moral imperative.

At first impression, it may be perceived as high honour for a Malaysian to be appointed as trustee of Iraq's oil heritage. It will soon turn to dishonour of a hypocrite when the international community realises that our positions have become self serving without internal and moral consistency.