That any government worth its salt should first and foremost ensure the safety of its citizens is axiomatic. A government which fails to do so should make way for others who can. The main question facing the international community is how do the authorities go about doing so.

In the present case, draconian laws are being enacted ostensibly for the "safety" of the people, but pregnant with the possibility of promoting what Samuel Huntington has predicted, that the principal conflict of global politics would occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. Huntington adds that the most important conflicts of the future will occur along the cultural fault lines separating these religions from one another.

His portrayal of interaction between Islam and the West as a clash of civilisations has been echoed by Princeton Professor Bernard Lewis who warned of a movement "no less than a clash of civilizations -- the perhaps irrational but historic reaction of an ancient rival against the Judeo-Christian heritage, our secular present."

Lewis, credited as being the intellectual muscle (his advice is keenly sought by the likes of Dick Cheney and Richard Perle) to the Bush administration's putsch in the Middle East, sees the roots of Muslim rage being embedded in the feelings of the Muslims having being humbled by the Christians and the Jews resulting in "millennial rivalry" between the two great religions of the world.

As opposed to Lewis' diatribe against Muslims, Stephen Zunes and Professor John Esposito identify the root causes of the deep malaise in the widespread feeling of failure and loss of self-esteem, failed political system and stagnant economies, US tolerance of "democratic exceptions" in many Islamic countries on grounds of national interest, and in the process perpetuating unfair distribution of wealth in those societies. In addition Zunes points out that from the time of the crusades through European colonisation and Iraq war, Western Christians killed far more Muslims than has been the case in reverse and the Muslims have a very strong historical sense of this fact.

One may engage oneself in endless debate about the "grievances" of the radicalised Muslims that led some of them into the fold of terrorism. The moot question facing the international community remains as to how to deal with this Frankenstein which undeniably, in part at least, had been western construction.

It has been argued that anti-westernism (or anti-Americanism) is mainly because of a state's political and economic failure, and opposition to certain US policies merely provides the content and opportunity for the expression of anger by the radical Muslims at their state's failure. While this argument is partly tenable, it would be fallacious to totally ignore the West's responsibility in causing this anger and frustration even among moderate Muslims due to the western world's pursuit of one-sided policy favouring Israel in the Middle East crisis and supporting despots in the Islamic world.

The western duplicity is equally evident in sustaining military rulers in some of the Muslim countries for tactical reasons because they happen to support the war on terror in contradistinction of the western advocacy of democracy and the rule of law as essential prerequisites for development. The western penchant for democracy in the Third World was noticeably absent during the cold war because of the utility of the military dictators in stemming the expansion of communism.

Indeed, from John Foster Dulles to Henry Kissinger, American leaders' belief in imperial intervention prevented them from flinching in ordering the extinction of "disobedient" Third World leaders like Patrice Lumumba of Congo, Salvadore Allende of Chile, Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam, and Sheikh Mujibur Rahman of Bangladesh (as concluded by Lawrence Lifschultz), among many others.

These "imperial" leaders had much in common with the "new sovereigntists" (term coined by Professor Peter Spiro) -- -a group of highly credentialed academics who are dedicated to defending American institutions from alleged encroachment by international ones. They believe that US sovereignty is absolute, illimitable, and non-dissipatory.

The new sovereigntists find international law as too amorphous to justify US consent, intrusive into domestic affairs, unenforceable, and international law making process unaccountable. They would, however, have no qualms in justifying the Bush doctrine of preemption and to insist that sovereign states to retain their sovereignty must remain accountable to the international community and demonstrate to their satisfaction that the governments of these countries treat foreigners and their own citizens in ways not repugnant to internationally accepted code of conduct.

In aberrant cases, the international community, pursuant to its "duty to prevent" -gross human rights violations, genocide, man made famine, etc. -would intervene to set matters right. Gareth Evans (International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty) accepted the principle of the "responsibility to protect" in cases of large scale humanitarian crisis.

In the aftermath of 9/11, western jurists (such as Ann-Marie Slaughter of Princeton) argue that international intervention would be justified in countries ruled by brutal, aggressive, and irrational leaders who, having muzzled all domestic dissent, have embarked upon acquisition of weapons of mass destruction. In Slaughter's case, as distinct from Evans' recommendation, emphasis is more on security than on humanitarian considerations.

The activism by the international community in Sudan could be cited as a case in point where the international community have successfully brokered a peace between armed combatants who have been fighting a war for decades. There is indeed eminent logic proffered by LSE Professor David Held that our mutual interconnectedness and vulnerability have grown so rapidly that we no longer live "in a world of discreet national communities (but) in a world of overlapping communities of fate where trajectories of other countries are heavily enmeshed with each other."

Tony Blair had also recognised the mutual dependence of states in pursuit of shared values -- -democracy and human rights being core goals -- -while enunciating his Doctrine of International Community. Ironically he who had recognised the centrality of the UN in a world ruled by law and international cooperation and advocated humanitarian intervention because "acts of genocide can never be a purely internal affair" had thrown his advocacy of the UN as the preferred destination to the winds in his waging of an unjustified in Iraq.

Intervention, humanitarian or otherwise, is fraught with danger. More so if it is undertaken to effect regime change. Increasing casualties in Iraq several years after the ouster of Saddam Hussein, exit of Paul Bremer, election of an Iraqi government, and the framing of a constitution have not lulled the ferocity of resistance against US occupation. Iraq remains embedded in the quagmire of economic difficulties, political uncertainty, and absence of law and order.

Despite sharp controversy around the concept of regime change, Council of Foreign Relations President Richard Haas- argues that regime change allows a state to solve its problems with another state by removing the offensive regime and replacing it with a less offensive one.

Citing examples of Tehran and Pyongyang, Haas argues that the Bush administration's preference to deal with these two members of the "axis of evil" as it did with Iraq, however tempting, is unlikely to work because of prohibitive cost in terms of loss of life of South Koreans and US personnel stationed there, and the inevitable tremendous physical destruction in South Korea.

The US is acutely aware that Iran has the ability to retaliate against any western misadventure by unleashing Hamas and Hezbullah against the US, or by promoting instability in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia. Besides, any US strike on Iran would renew the anger in the Muslim world and could lead to a sharp and prolonged increase in oil price, triggering a global economic crisis.

It would more likely than not serve the West and the non-radicalised Muslims whose interests are conterminous if the Anglo-American combine were to use soft power to face the menace of terrorism. Vigilance on countries incubating terrorism should not, however, be lowered given the protean nature of Islamic extremism.

At stake is not only the western way of life. At stake is the existence of universal values of democracy and freedom inscribed from the Magna Carta through the English Bill of Rights to the US Bill of Rights to the UN Declaration of Fundamental Human Rights and all other international covenants entered upon by the community of states ensuring peace and stability in the world.

While these values have to be preserved and protected, the West has to guard "against the dangers of a foreign policy that combines unilateralism, arrogance, and parochialism" because, as Harvard Professor Joseph Nye tells us, throughout history, a coalition of countries have arisen to balance dominant powers.

Besides, the democratisation of violence, spelling the state loss of monopoly of instruments of violence, makes it imperative for the powerful to temper their power with reason, so that the culture of "shoot to kill" does not take the life of innocent Brazilians, and thereby fuel the anger of the dispossessed. One hopes that the cradle of democratic values would continue to follow their age old syncretic tradition as an antidote to ideologues of hatred.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.