There are two parts to British High Commissioner to Malaysia, Bruce Cleghorn's response to the malaysiakini interview ( British envoy: No link between Islam and war o­n Iraq ).

The first part was that the impending war against Iraq was not a war against Islam. The second, "that Britain had never sought a war against Iraq, and that it was merely concerned with the country's lack of commitment to disarmament as required under Resolution 1441, which was unanimously passed by the UN Security Council". Neither elucidates issues central to Britain's position.

That the imminent war is not directed at Islam or Muslims in general might be an example of diplomacy to assuage the feelings of some Muslims who may otherwise think it is, but by itself - and considering the number of allies in the Arab world the US and UK coalition has against Iraq - this remark is hardly enlightening. Besides, who else o­n the world stage - except Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, and regrettably our prime minister - has ever gone o­n record to say that it was, and taken seriously?

On the other hand, the second part of the remarks - that Britain would follow the US to enforce Resolution 1441 - is specious. It cannot satisfactorily answer the poser from our country as current chairperson of the 116-nation Non-Aligned Movement ( War is 'illegal' says Pak Lah ), that if you want to justify your role as police office for UN to enforce Resolution 1441, why proceed with unilateral action against Iraq in the face of vetoes from France, Russia, China and Germany, and without the Security Council's mandate? Why the selective police role?

The world knows that Iraq has much to do with the advancement of American strategic and geopolitical interest in the Persian Gulf region, and the opposition by France, Germany, Russia and China in the Security Council is more about realpolitik and further expansion of Pax Americana than anything else such as morality of war in the abstract.

The merits or demerits of Pax Americana and imposition of a world order as envisioned by the US is not the issue here but Britain's position.

Why at the expense of internal dissension, and even cabinet resignations, does the British government led by Tony Blair (as Margaret Thatcher and John Major administrations) keep o­n being the American poodle and follow the US foreign policy wherever it leads notwithstanding international opinion?

In my last discussion with Brits some months back, even their own countrymen admitted that Britain had always been a puppet for the US.

It is most demeaning when this is extended to even script lines in Hollywood movies such as The Contender (released by Dreamworks in 2000). Here, Illinois congress representative Shelley Runyon (played by Gary Oldman) opposes President Jackson Evens's (played by Jeff Bridges) nomination of Sen Laine Hanson (played by Joan Allen) as vice-president.

According to Runyon the world will not accept a woman as leader, who has not perfect credentials but merely because by the "cancer of affirmative action" she is, by gender, a woman. When questioned by o­ne of president Jackson's advisors (played by Saul Rubinek) as to why the world accepted a woman like Margaret Thatcher as leader, even though she had not perfect credentials, Runyon says most condescendingly that it is because the world knows that "she will always have to answer to Ronald Reagan".

In darker times of the German blitz erg across the entire Europe, it was Great Britain that stood alone - and tall - to defend freedom and defy Hitler until such time President Roosevelt could galvanise the New World to come in aid of the Old. Churchill had taken the case to Congress to appeal for American intervention based o­n a "special relationship" forged from common Anglo-Saxon race, history, tradition, language, values and ties.

That was then when America was the savior, but after 50 years of relative peace enforced by Pax Americana, the savior has turned into a global bully.

Britain prides itself as a bulwark against history's bullies such as Hitler. Ironically Britain is now not just the poodle and puppet but the main hatchet man for the new global bully, George W Bush.

Is this special relationship more important than the European position or principles of right and wrong?

It is likely true that in realpolitik terms, it serves Britain's narrow national interest to remain America's key ally. The European Union, for all its delusions of grandeur and talk of a common foreign and security policy, is likely to remain a military midget in global power terms for decades to come and cannot mount a serious challenge to US global hegemony. As such, it remains in London's best interest to look toward and trail behind Washington closely to maximise its power or at least bask vicariously in the accomplishment and exercise of power of its American brethren based o­n this "special relationship".

"Special relationship" - an amalgam of common Anglo-Saxon stock, values, tradition, language - makes Britain follow the US wherever it leads, identify not with the European continent it is in but o­ne across the Atlantic, just as Australia would do without heed to Asia or Southeast Asian region.

Why is this Anglo-Saxon "special relationship" so important to a o­ne-time great nation like Britain as to override all considerations of right and wrong o­n the US part and to follow it all the way?

I can o­nly explain it in terms of Anglo-Saxon cultural and racial hubris - having lost a colonial empire, Britain now aspires to now vicariously share in the American creation of bigger global o­ne dominated by Anglo-Saxon values influence and power.

Not that I have any beef against Pax Americana or Anglo-Saxon cultural and political values - don't get me wrong, indeed I have considerable respect for them - but the issue here is confined to Britain's position as a consistent supporter of the Americans irrespective of right and wrong and international opinion.

I ask at what price this hubris and this constant British basking in the vicarious glory of the Americans just because of sharing of common Anglo-Saxon stock, language, values and historical military collaboration?

What price has to be paid in this "special relationship" in which Britain as junior partner has to always ally itself to the dictates of American foreign policy irrespective of merits?

Is there pride in subservience?

Is there pride in being a poodle and puppet in the candid confessions of your own countrymen?

Will a country that prides itself as defender against Tyranny now side with an aggressor because of common Anglo-Saxon heritage?

Will Britain be still 'Great' Britain in such a milieu?

I guess what I am trying to say is that in articulating Britain's position o­n the imminent war against Iraq that is likely to be launched any moment now, the British high commissioner to Malaysia, Bruce Cleghorn, has not addressed or elucidated at all this central issue that we Malaysians, as the rest of the world, are wondering.