Aizuddin Danian argued that "principles are nice to look at and nice to hold, but they don't make much sense in the dynamic environment of global politics where success is measured by how well we adapt to given situations and opportunities." ( Forget principles, take that Iraq oil chief job if it comes ).

Whilst there is nothing wrong - and indeed there is much force in the argument that we should not refrain from accepting opportunities as they occur in pursuit of national interest - it should not be at the price and expense of our credibility as a nation.

The writer is right to say that "if the appointment were true, it would be a political appointment that will reflect o­n Malaysia as a nation rather than the decision of an individual".

But what is a nation made of, if it not its principles or at the very least the pretensions of principles? Or are we suggesting here that we are still a nation with principles except that they are principles of naked opportunism?

We would count for nothing.

If we want to tap opportunities made available by Pax Americana and American leadership and hegemony of the international order (and as I said there is nothing wrong in that per se ), we should not however, as in the recent past and in the future, incompatibly continue to posture loudly and visibly as a bastion against Pax Americana in assertion of our own leadership of the Third World, Non-Aligned Movement and Organisation of Islamic Conference.

Who will believe us when it is seen that our top oil executive in Iraq is an American stooge distributing the spoils of reconstructing Iraq oil to American conglomerates in the likes of Halliburton (Kellogg Brown & Root), Bechtel, Fluor, Louise Berger and Parsons Groups?

Or is the writer suggesting we should give up all pretensions of being a principled nation? Domestically, how will this provide political fodder to PAS against Umno in the coming general election?

It is not a case of "allowing pride to get in the way of progress", there being a vital difference between pride o­n o­ne hand and credibility and integrity o­n the other.

We can take advantage o­nly if we can give a spin, a rationalisation that sounds plausible as to why we could give political approval to Mohd Hassan Marican's acceptance of the post of the new Iraqi oil chief, if he were so offered.

The PM has started the ball rolling by stating that it has to meet the prerequisite of being offered by the United Nations. In this instance, our man will represent the UN and not US or UK.

This is however a long shot. The responsibility for the rebuilding and management of the second largest oil reserve is too important to be left by the Anglo-American victors to the UN, and we all know and expect that the US and UK will play the leading role here.

In fact they will say that their key role as stakeholder in reconstructing Iraq's oil industry is to demonstrate to the Iraqi people and the world that the US wants to liberate, not occupy or control their economic resources.

If the US were to appoint Mohd Hassan as Iraq oil chief and we to accept it, it will be construed to mean that our government will help the US and UK to gain international credence that they have led a war for liberation rather than invasion of Iraq for its economic resources which would of course make nonsense, and constitute an admission of error, of our entire anti-war campaign and stance so far.

I don't see how we could reconcile the irreconcilable here.