***Bush did not say anything on the Middle East situation. In today's global scene, a fair humane resolution of the Palestinian problem has an equal urgency as the need to combat international terrorism. What Sharon is doing to the Palestinians is the most gruesome and reprehensible trampling of civilised norms of international behaviour.***

AFIERCE resolve to continue the campaign against terrorism and a stern warning to nations that are regarded as potential abettors of terrorist movements highlighted President Bush's state of the union address. The speech reflects a strong and unambguous intent to follow up on the remarkable success accomplished in the enterprise in Afghanistan and not let the momentum to flag. Quite understandably, a crucial factor that conditioned the tone of the speech and the special emphasis on antiterrorism effort was to ensure that the surge of Bush's domestic political support remains intact and that the fear and insecurity that has troubled the Americans in the aftermath of 11th September is adequately addressed.

President Bush also touched on some other issues of concern to the America people -- revival of the economy, improving the employment situation, providing retirement security and health coverage for older citizens etc, but the antiterrorism theme was by far the most dominant feature of the address.

A notable thing in the speech is the naming of three states -- North Korea, Iran and Iraq as sponsors of terror and terming them as an axis of evil. This was meant to pass a variety of messages to a variety of quarters. First of all let us consider Bush's domestic backdrop and constraint. After 11th September events, life in America has changed and the widely held assumption of the Americans about their security,

invulnerability and freedom was destroyed. A fear has come to grip the nation that the next assault might come in a most unexpected manner and its scale could be far more catastrophic -- such as the use of nuclear or biological weapons supplied to some terrorist groups by one of the rogue states. Analysts in the US have been warning that unless the country is on its guard, the next terrorist attack ■ ^^^^^M

will kill not four or five thousand, but millions. Bush therefore made a point of telling the Americans that the rogue states were on watch and America will act if need arose, and act alone if necessary.

The second point to note -- about specific mention of these three states -- is that they are being unmistakably forewarned that they had better not contemplate any mischief against America. The warning carries a lot of credibility against the backdrop of US action in Afghanistan. It is, however, difficult to visualise a situation in which America can launch an attack against any of these countries without convincing evidence or some minimum diplomatic underpinning.

A third point that needs to be noted is that two of the states mentioned are Muslim states but the third one -- North Korea -- is not a

Muslim state. The message is that the anti-terrorism focus is not on some Muslim countries alone.

After 11th September, a troubling phenomenon in US was that some Americans tended to identify Islam with terrorism. In the view of these particular sections, all Muslims were suspect. President Bush and his advisers recognising the dark implications of such a trend, swiftly moved to quash such a perception. (

In the state of the union address, there is again a positive and appreciative reference to Islam: "Let the skeptics look to Islam's own rich history -- with its centuries of learning, and tolerance and progress." It would have been a good thing for Mr Bush to say a little more on this subject. Both for US and the Islamic world, it is of paramount importance that in the fight against terrorism, the US makes a clear distinction between moderate (and relatively silent) forces in the Islamic countries and those radical groups like Al Qaida and the Taliban who have utterly abused and subverted the name and values of Islam to do things that are against the real Islamic ideals and teachings.

One element in Mr Bush's address, an inclination towards unilateral action, if such a thing comes to be seen in America's national interest, is something that

America needs to be careful about. Clearly, the unilateralism that is so stridently articulated in the address stems from the spectacular success that America's smart weapons and well honed military techniques achieved in Afghanistan. The danger in the unilateralism is that it inevitably undermines a world order based on the supremacy of international law. Whenever Mr Bush and his advisers, in the wake of 11th

September, talked about a strike on Iraq, it raised disquiet among Muslim countries and unease among America's European allies.

Carefully reading the state of union address, an impression emerges that Mr Bush's administration minimises, if not altogether dismisses, the difficulties and problems that arbitrary action by US against any other nation or nations may create enmity with its allies and with countries like China and Russia. It is reasonable to assume that Mr Bush's speech will make Russia and China somewhat uneasy and push them to come closer together to create a counter weight against America's excessive hegemony.

The supportive words in the speech about Pakistan represents the only significant focus on South Asian region: "Many nation are acting forcefully, Pakistan is now cracking down on terror, and I

admire the strong leadership of President Musharraf". These can be little doubt that India will be unhappy with this commending remark on what President Pervez Musharraf has been doing to rein in the terrorists in his country. India has been persistently saying that Pakistan is not doing enough to contain terrorist groups, and has in fact wanted America to put more

pressure on Pakistan. Mr Bush's remark shows that at least for present, America wants to maintain closeness with Pakistan and that it does not want to see India create tension with its western neighbour. Mr Bush might be telling India that America does not quite concur with India's repeated complaints against Pakistan.

The doubling of defence expenditure announced in the speech, appears somewhat puzzling. Perhaps this move is calculated to tell the 'rogue' nations that the warning that has been served on them is meant to be serious and should be taken as such. One fall out from the higher defence expenditure will be to impel countries like China and Russia to do likewise. One wonders how increased outlay on military will impact on America's effort for economic recovery.

This analysis of the Bush's state of union address may be appropriately concluded by an observation on one significant omission. He did not say anything on the Middle East situation. In today's global scene, a fair humane resolution of the Palestinian problem has an equal urgency as the need to combat international terrorism. What Sharon is doing to the Palestinians is the most gruesome and reprehensible trampling of civilised norms of international behaviour. Sharon has made a mockery of international law. Sadly, he does so with complete impunity. Before US moved into Afghanistan, and when it was focused on mobilising support of other countries and Muslim nations in particular, Mr Bush indicated that they would have a constructive and evenhanded engagement in the Middle East. With Afghan success, it now seems that Mr Bush's administration has become indifferent to the fate of the Palestinians. They are unmoved by Sharon's savaging of the Palestinians. Some suitable reference to the Palestinian problem was very much in order. Mr Bush's complete silence on the issue will deeply disappoint the Muslim world while encouraging Sharon on the bloody and brutal path he has embraced towards extinguishing the prospect of a Palestinian state.

Ziaus Shams Chowdhury is a former Ambassador.