& çâÌæÚUæð´ ·¤è ¥ôÚU Îð¹Ùæ ÁæÚUè ÚU¹ð´ ¥ÍæüÌ ¥ÂÙð ÜÿØ ÂÚU ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´Ð ãæÚU Ù ×æÙð´, €UØô´ç·¤ ·¤æ× ·¤ÚUÙð âð ¥æÂ·¤ô ©gðàØ ·¤è Âýæç# ãôÌè ãñ ¥õÚU ÁèßÙ ·¤æ ¹æÜèÂÙ ÎêÚU ãôÌæ ãñÐ ÖÜð ãè ÁèßÙ ×ð´ ç·¤ÌÙè Öè ·¤çÆÙæ§ü €UØô´ Ù ¥æ°, çÁ™ææâæ ¥õÚU ©ˆâæã ÕÙæ° ÚU¹ð´Ð ŠØæÙ ÚU¹ð´, ÜÿØ ã×ðàææ ¥æÂ·Ô¤ Âæâ ãôÌð ãñ´ çÁ‹ãð´ ÂæÙð ·Ô¤ çÜ° ÂýØæâ ¥æÂ ·¤Öè Öè àæéM¤ ·¤ÚU â·¤Ìð ãñ´Ð

Currents and Crosscurrents

How effective was Bush's state of the union message?

Over and above these, the President's declaration not to seek a "permission slip" before taking further preventive military action against another state testifies to his deliberate and unfortunate slight on the international community and the United Nations.

M. M. Rezaul Karim
PRESIDENT George W Bush Jr. delivered his State of the Union Message to the US Congress on 20 January. The customary annual ritual that took place at the joint session of the House and the Senate was significant for more than one reason. President's speech was significant because it was the last such opportunity he would avail of before the nation goes to polls to re-elect him or to have a democrat as the next President. It was different because, unlike similar other messages, it was characterised by a heavy overtone of issue's on foreign affairs. It varied with others because it did little to fulfil its mission to unite the nation with a common agenda.
The democratic hopefuls, whose campaigning for the presidential election being at the peak at present, were highly critical. It is but natural that the Democrats would deride the Republicans, especially in an election year. But this year it is more different than the usual. People would like to assess whether the President has been able to convince his fellow countrymen with his case on different issues to form a common work schedule for the year. Is the American economy really booming or unemployment falling? Was he able to repair the damage caused to his allies and new friends across the Atlantic? Finally,
did his address contain any pledge or hope for restoring the status of the United Nations and make it more effective? These are some of the questions that agitate the minds of politically conscious people both at home and abroad.
Let us take up the issues. The tragic 9/11 events, indeed, transformed the world In many ways. It had its impact also on the stance and contents of US President's State of the Union message. It was
horrible Co witness the catastrophe caused by terrorists in 2001. They struck at the hearts of the two most endearing elements the American nation, being the leader of the uni-poloar world, nurtured as their symbol of wealth and strengththe TWin Towers and the Pentagon. The people of America had, therefore, very good reasons to demand punishment of the evildoers and the President acceded to their demand.
But, in doing so, the President invaded Iraq and held its
President as a prisoner, repeatedly insisting that Saddam Hussain possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed an immediate threat to America and the West. Most of the usually good natured people of the United States believed in what the President had said. But it was a well-known fact that Iraq had no connection with the Al-Qaeda and no capacity to pose immediate threat to America and the West. Nor was any evidence found of the weapons of mass destruction on the Iraqi territory either by the UN
inspector Hans Blix or the last CIA appointed inspector David Kay. On the other hand, the self-confessed perpetrator of the 9/11 events, the Al-Qaeda chief Bin Laden, is still at large. This scenario was not revealed in its due perspective to the generally simple and complacent American people.
The President, however, aptly and correctly described the fact that war against global terror was
not over and must continue. But why was it so? How did the 9/11 events take place and unleash the elaborate and intensive operation of war machinery for the hunt of the fugitives, the terrorists and the insurgents? Did not the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces have any responsibility to take preventive action to protect its citizens and property? Inability to do so, it was argued, was the outcome of intelligence failure. The same was attributed to the story of the massive stockpile of WMD in Iraq with the consequent threat to the security of the United States and the West. Another catastrophic folly, another unpardonable case of intelligence failure to which the Administration is yet to admit. Or, was it adeliberate ploy?
The Americans went to liberate the Iraqi people from the atrocities of Saddam Hussain and to overthrow his dictatorial regime. As opposed to that, they conquered Iraq and stayed there as an occupation force. The majority of the Iraqis condemned the way Saddam Hussain had ruled. But
they like much less the way American troops started maltreating them, and abhor midnight swoops on innocent women and children. Violence begets violence and insurgents become stronger with every passing day, despite Saddam being held captive. Everyday some US soldiers, many of whom being young draftees, are being killed. The death toll has exceeded half a thousand, to the consternation of the /American people, since the
President declared in May that the Iraqi war was over. One senior official of the erstwhile inner circle of the President has since revealed that the invasion of Iraq had been planned by the President much before the events of 9/11. This seriously questions the credibility of the Administration and invalidates, once again, of its argument in justification of war against Iraq.
As for America's relations with the United Nations and her Western allies, the situation is far from satisfactory. The President enumerated an impressive list of those countries, which had lent diplomatic support and, except for Britain, provided token military personnel or non-combatant troops in Iraq to vindicate American invasion and its aftermath. But he made no reference to the initial American military action taken in Iraq without specific sanction of the Security Council. The Security Council is entrusted with the maintenance and promotion of world peace, as ordained by the founding fathers, among which the United States was a
principal one, and as per commitment by all its subsequent members.
Over and above these, the President’s declaration not to seek a "permission slip" before taking further preventive military action against another state testifies to his deliberate and unfortunate slight on the international community and the United Nations. The question of a worthwhile role of the United Nations in the imme-
diate post-Saddam era in Iraq, unless the United States hands over the authority to the world body, appears remote. The group of traditional European allies of the United States led by France and Germany did not also perceive any indication of improvement of relations with America following the Presidential address.
The President, however, made some good points on domestic issues. The American people are generally moved more on domestic issues than on foreign affairs. Every President strives to make positive impact on citizens, to reach the ultimate goal of securing more votes. The President claimed that the economy was thriving. There was more investment and less unemployment. The interest rate has been cut and people have more money to spend and invest. The health care has expanded. The democrats, on the other hand, countered that the President had, in fact, plunged the nation in unprecedented debt and resorted to severe deficit financing. The US dollar is weak. The President
inherited the exchequer with a $200 billion surplus and has already indebted it with over $500 billion in deficit. His long-term plan for the economy over a decade will cost the nation trillions of dollar in debt. The funds he had pledged to an improved and expanded health care are yet to be released in full. President's claim on reduction of unemployment was strongly disputed by the democrats. Over and above these, the highly outstretched military forces of the United States have put progressively heavy burden on American taxpayers
The American people are generally good, God-fearing people, who live contented in a land of plenty. Pursuit of liberty, good life and happiness has kept them generally unconcerned about international politics, as the country is self-sufficient and, if necessary, has the capacity to remain isolated. Domestic issues affect them more and they are deeply concerned if anything costs them more in terms of dollars and cents. The American President being the most powerful man on earth is also in a position to distribute fishes and loaves in securing compliance with his policies and actions. The Republicans have the added material advantage over the D emocrats of being prot^gd s of big business and industry. So, irrespective of serious lapses, big wrong-doings and unpardonable follies, it may still be difficult for a Democrat to defeat a sitting Republican President in reelection. President George W Bush knows It well and is determined to take full advantage of it.
M.M.Rezaul Karim, a former Ambassador, is a memberof BNP’s Advisory Council.