Malaysian government’s criticism of oppressive Israeli policies in relation to Palestinians – or of United States policy in Iraq – is different from Karunanidhi’s criticism of Malaysian government’s treatment of its own Indian nationals in that in the case of Malaysian government’s criticism, it is directed at one country’s – whether Israel’s or US’s – policies and treatment of another country which makes it therefore an international issue whereas Karunanidhi’s criticism relates to Malaysian government’s treatment of not another country but its own nationals of Indian descent, hence a domestic issue.

A better example to show double standards would be if or where Nazri criticized Singapore’s treatment of its minority Malay citizens – or maybe the issue of not allowing Muslim students to wear tudung in class.

But even last example of tudung, it is not best example because of the factor of religion (as distinct from “race”) involved where unity of muslim brotherhood based on belief transcends national borders or international norm of non interference in domestic affairs of another country.

It is however agreed that increasingly this international norm of not interfering in domestic affairs of another country is being qualified where human rights violation or humanitarian considerations relating (say) to ethnic cleansing is implicated.

But surely marginalisation of any community does not – based on prevailing norms – tantamount to ethnic cleansing unless one believes in what Hindraf’s leaders said in their memorandum to Gordon Brown.

Do you have facts and evidence to suggest what happened in KG Medan is leading to full scale bloodbath waiting to take place?

Secondly I am also not aruing or debating what “ought” to be the international position on issues like these. I am merely clarifying what “is” the present stance and norm generally and currently prevailing within and taken by the international community of where the line is drawn on non interference of another country’s domestic affairs and what circumstances are deemed the line having been crossed, justifying international or other countries’ intervention, as justifiable exception to the first mentioned norm.

Islam is transcending national borders in its solidarity under Muslim brotherhood. It is a belief or tenet of faith of many muslims. It is not an international law or norm. I have never suggested that it was.

What I was implying is that if you asked Malaysian leaders why they are championing Palestinians and Iraq on the world stage on grounds that Malaysia would also be interfering with domestic affairs of other nation when it does not want others, like for example India, to interfere with our domestic affairs on grounds of the principle of non intervention, they are likely to have additional argument to rationalize, reconcile and justify their actions (and avert a charge of double standards) on grounds that their religious tenets of belief transcend international norm and law on non interference. It is on another plane.

International law and norm is trying to balance two conflicting imperatives – one is the respect of a sovereign’s nation right to direct its own affairs without interference of others and the other is trying to shape world order with modicum of minimum standards on human rights (here Malaysia has refrained so far from ratifying some crucial treaties/conventions under the UN Declaration of Human Rights) and rallying international intervention to prevent/stop ethnic cleansing/genocide on humanitarian grounds, notwithstanding and as an exception to the other policy of non intervention.

“How many people shall be killed before UN can intervene and stop ethic cleansing in a country?” is a good question based on principle of prevention/mitigation better than complete cure of which I have no answer where the line (balancing the two imperatives) should be drawn. Neither do I think this has been figured out by the relevant stakeholders at UN level or by international law.

I have not addressed and have made no comments about the issue of whether Tamil Nadu CM is doing his duty right or wrong to comment on our problems.

As I explained in an earlier posting, I am just describing what is the current prevailing custom, usage and thinking per international norms and practices rather than what ought to be the case. Look at how internationally they look at refugee status in granting asylum. Your being racially and religiously discriminated in your own country is not a qualifying criteria. It has to be more than that.

I draw the obvious differences in Israeli-Palestinian conflict/American intervention in Iraq to Kit’s attention out of good intention that if one is arguing with Nazri on why he is “double standards” in barking atTamil Nadu CM, one should be armed and not give Nazri the obvious advantage to be able to rebut by pointing out the obvious differences in the Israeli-Palestinian & Iraq conflict from that of our Hindraf situation in that Israeli-Palestinian & Iraq conflict involves, within that conflict, a foreign power like US intervening in another country’s domestic affairs in contravention of international norm so that even the United Nation is involved in arbitrate a solution whereas on the our own issue of Malaysian government’s treatment or mistreatment of certain races, it is still a domestic issue (based on present international norms) involving no other foreign power/country contravening the principle of non intervention or for that matter the UN taking a lead to settle things.

Happy to see your return to write in and contribute to the Blog, Wang Yen. I have responded to EARNEST question No.3 something about one of the cornerstones of Islamic beliefs based on Muslim Ummah transcending national borders and nation states and how from the very beginning of Islam, the belief is that there can only be one ruler and one Ummah under the ruler, quite different from the “Western” concept of separate nation states with their own respective sovereignty developed from 18th century factional strife and wars in Europe based on racial and religious lines; how basically this concept of universal muslim brotherhood is unique feature to Islam and not on all 4 squares with (say) Hinduism and other religions. But the posting has not appeared, seems to be presently lost in cyberspace at the time of writing.

Besides the interesting part is that the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. Karunanidhi was criticizing the Malaysian government not strictly on the basis of religious solidarity worldwide against persecution of Hindus but more on race – solidarity that Tamils (albeit also Hindu) have been persecuted. At least that’s what his detractors in Indian Parliament argued against M. Karunanidhi, that he was making political posturing as champion of Tamils worldwide.

Well, the answer to that question will be answer to explain why there’s so much of conflict in this world present and past, and foreseeably in the future: one religious grouping thinks that their doctrinal basis is only true and justified whilst others’ are not.

malaysiatoday.com, a good example you gave for which the only justification to avert the allegation of double standards would be along religious standards. Or they may argue that it is to near to our Northern border so for genuine political reasons they like to see the unrest in Thai Southern Border settled, with the disgruntled appeased. The argument get harder to sustain when it concerns Southern separatist movement in the Phillipines.(It’s not near our borders).

Non interference of domestic affairs of sovereign nations is based on the principle of self determination widely accepted in international law & norm.

If I were not mistaken, principle of self determination has its philosophical underpinnings in English philosopher, John Stuart Mill’s thoughts.

Mill thought that a political community must struggle for freedom-whether successful or not ; that the internal freedom of a political community could only be achieved by its internal members ; that if the political system was oppressive, it was the responsibility of members of that political polity to change it whether by ballot or revolution.

In the premises, if one chooses to remain a citizen in a country in which he is marginalized, he has to take the good and bad and is estopped from otherwise soliciting outside assistance based on ethnic solidarity.

In today’s Globalised environment of free mobility, he could after all migrate and get out of his oppressed condition. The key is self determination, for being responsible for one’s situation – the necessary condition for and consequence in exercise of his freedom and free will.

China, that overseas an expansive diaspora, seems to take this position on non interference, repudiating arguments based on ethnic solidarity as an exception if what malaysiatoday.com earlier said in his posting: December 1st, 2007 at 17: 30.06 may be relied upon as true – “Look at the Jakarta 1998 513 riot for example, China government classified it as a domestic affair and said no intervention from her part”.

The limited recognized exception in interntional norm/law to non interference / principle of non intervention is (besides national self defence) compelling humanitarian imperatives to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing.

That is the widely international norm expressed as it is – not what I think it should otherwise be.