How Bush's second term will influence global scene?

In any case, Washington will expectedly play a big role in the ME tangle and this has been further reinforced by the comment of president Bush that his new four-year term agenda includes the possibility of establishment of an independent Palestine state in the Middle East. It is assumed that Mr. Bush's new term that starts from January 20 next year, or even the period preceding that, will witness some activities centering the ME situation in the post-Arafat era. This can also be surmised that since Arafat is no more there, the chief executive of the most powerful nation on the earth will no more nurture disliking against the PLO leadership to the extent he did before and his role as far as Palestine-Israel issue is concerned can also be a bit different -- not so much pro-Tel Aviv apparently in the changing scenario.

However, the change in the state department, announcing Dr. Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State in succession to Colin Powell, is being interpreted in some quarters as an indication of likely hard line foreign policy. It remains to be seen if such an assumption is based on objective assessment or an over-blown idea devoid of much rationale.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

American president wields tremendous power and admittedly enjoys great clout in the international affairs. One particular administration or its policies may spawn controversy at varying degrees depending on certain issues, but there is hardly any scope to dispute the near-unassailable influence of Washington in the global affairs. This has been further reinforced by certain recent developments that have caught world attention and unquestionably the Iraq crisis is at the top of all. The United States saw to it that its scheme of things is implemented no matter who supported or opposed. Even it by-passed the United Nations in launching an all out military assault on Iraq early last year and paid scant importance to the sentiments of its European allies France and Germany. The new-found democracy in the form of Russian federation also could not cut much ice while socialist China did not approve American aggressive role in Iraq but nothing could deter President George W. Bush from his military operation with the support of few allies like Britain and Australia.

This brings into sharp focus how the writ of the United States runs and finally it is Bush administration which carried its scheme through, regardless of the views of the rest of the world. That the America virtually turned a blind eye to sentiments of a vast majority of the nations in launching the armed adventure against a much weakened country hardly needs elaboration. In the earlier Gulf war, sparked by Iraq's occupation of its northern tiny oil-rich neighbour Kuwait, world's most countries supported the United States as illegal annexation of Kuwait by sheer force had thrown international laws and ethics to the wind. This time the case is different as most saw the United States by sheer military might shaped the affairs in Iraq as it wanted. And this was done with considerable opposition in the United States itself.

The point that is being driven home by all these illustrations is that American presidency can effectively bring about significant change in the global scene even if the rationale can be questioned. And President W Bush is one such president who believes in the American supremacy in world affairs and he has fought the elections precisely on this point. He has reasons to believe that his policy has been approved by the American people as reflected by the mandate he has received in the polls. The offensive in Fallujah and Mosul by the US forces suggests that the president felt such strong attitude is in line with his policy in Iraq that earned him the re-election no matter what the outside world thinks about.

The post-election scenario is marked by discussions and speculations broadly on the subject -- how the second term of president Bush is going to be. It mainly involves two questions -- will he continue to pursue a policy of aggressiveness that was clearly demonstrated during the last four years, or would he be somewhat lenient in dealing with global issues ? There is an impression in most quarters that he would probably follow the same tough policy if not a stiffer one since he may feel that he has secured a mandate in that direction. Following the 9/11,the Afghan and more importantly Iraq tangle cropped up and Bush used political and military might to confront the situation. This made him controversial at the world at large and also to an extent in the United States itself. But fact remains that Americans appear to have endorsed his policy of internal and external security.

In the circumstances, the president on his re-election is likely to remain strong on Iraq. The same attitude may be reflected in dealing with Syria and the pro-Damascus government in Lebanon and many fear that Bush's pre-emptive action against adversary and recalcitrant may include Iran and North Korea on the nuclear issue. Elsewhere, also the same aggressive approach may find an echo while in south Asia tensions may continue to subside as Bush administration encourages rapprochement between the two principal players in the regional scene -- India and Pakistan.

On the other hand, some argue that in the second term Bush may be more accommodative since he is not going to fight re-election any more and may seek to acquire an image that gives him less controversy and more dignity at home and abroad. Undoubtedly, the elections have brought to the fore sharp division in the United States on Bush policy and he won popular votes by a narrow margin. His defeated rival has called upon the victor to unite the people and Bush himself has also remarked after the victory that he wants to become president of all Americans. He may also try to take European allies along with him on crucial matters like Iraq and may not like to be seen hawkish on Iran and North Korea or for that matter on the Middle East crisis. It is possible that Bush prefers such a relatively soft policy considering that uniting the American people in the aftermath of the polls and a larger acceptance in the international arena would earn him greater place in the history. However, cynics would tend to believe that characteristically, he would definitely pursue the attitude that was his hall mark over the last four years. Only time can tell how he would respond to the international issues in the coming days.

However, the bottom line is that as the person in charge of the sole superpower, Bush is expected in the second term to work for a world that is more safer and healthy not only for the Americans but peoples of the world as a whole since he can call shots on a global scale that no other can certainly do. The change effected in the position of Secretary of State may indicate that President Bush is giving a signal that continuation of the four-year legacy in the area of foreign policy is not a certainty. Mr. Bush's second term will particularly be tested in the ME situation in the post-Arafat era where wisdom and not aversion, pragmatism and not abhorrence, and an approach based on humanism and fair play will be more expected to truly help create a better world.

Zaglul Ahmed Chowdhury is a senior journalist