From your interview of the US ambassador, Marie T Huhtala, there is no doubt about it - she is certainly a better and more sensitive diplomat than her predecessor. Good diplomacy is sometimes to say a truth that counts by the help of an untruth that does not matter.

For example, her view that "the stand taken by the local media was not reflective of the Malaysian government's policy" is certainly true. Her follow-up statement that "it is not our assessment that the papers here are mouthpieces for the government even though there are some ownership ties" is, of course, suspect, but is nevertheless a necessary diplomatic explanation in justification of her first statement.

Local media are definitely mouthpieces of the government in furthering its agenda of sympathising with the outrage of the domestic audience at US' campaign in Afghanistan, whilst the government actually pursues quietly a divergent foreign policy so that all - both international as well as domestic audiences - are appeased and the objectives of realpolitik achieved. That itself is not duplicity but sophisticated diplomacy on the part of the government.

Being our major trading partner, the US is simply a superpower that we, in pursuit of our enlightened national interest, can ill afford not to have "friendly relations" with.

Yet, we have an opposition party here that, for support, keeps fanning religious sentiments by describing the ruling party as the 'Northern Alliance' hanging onto the bootstraps of Uncle Sam. This party's spokesmen and supporters have no qualms about calling for a boycott of trade relations with the United States or demonstrating in front of the US embassy.

I am also glad that the US has finally realised that the "shoot from the hip" rhetoric of our prime minister is not necessarily policy; that we do conduct our foreign policy with pragmatism and rationality notwithstanding an accommodation being extended to a certain segment of the domestic audience opposed to US but whose political alienation - the US ought to understand - cannot be afforded by the ruling elite.

Hence, the necessity on the government's part to walk the fine, if ambivalent line, of criticising publicly but quietly supporting the US to the benefit of the national interests of both countries!

One recollects the 'ping-pong diplomacy' of Mao Ze Dong in his heyday when he paved the way for the normalisation of China's relationship with the US that, given further impetus by the successive pragmatic leadership of Deng Hsiao Peng, Li Peng and Jiang Zemin, culminated in today's China's economic rejuvenation and entry into the WTO.

Whilst Mao then publicly condemned US capitalistic imperialism, he also sent overtures through the Chinese national ping-pong team for the then US president (Richard Nixon) to break the ice by a visit to Beijing.

Over dinner and rounds of Mao Tai (a fiery potent alcoholic brew), Mao joked that surely Nixon could not take seriously his communistic anti-imperialistic rhetoric that nobody amongst the ruling intelligentsia believed seriously, and that he had secretly 'cast his vote' for the Republicans being a rightist party best suited to contain Soviet expansionism.

This is a classic example of how rhetoric is sometimes divergent from policies which are necessary when the domestic situation is not yet ready and needs time to be guided to fall into line with the policies.

Huhtala is at a vantage point to make a positive difference by being impartial, and make the correct representations to her administration about the country's position based on substance rather than form.

After all, the Sept 11 attacks underscore the necessity for the US to be discerning as to who is really a friend or a foe in the livery of a friend.

Our record still shows that amongst Muslim nations that are non-client states of the US, we are still most modern, progressive and pragmatic in our approach to international relations. I think the US can respect that we can be friendly without being a lackey to her.