& 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

Challenges ahead of Bush presidency’s second term
***A great responsibility lies with Bush presidency during his second term to present America to the world in its true colours: a generous and humane America concerned with suffering humanity due to her omission and commission in its ruthless war on terror without addressing its causes. Amidst murky legacies on both sides how will she do it will be keenly watched by the world. But its compulsions are indeed enormous.***
NOW that George W Bush is back in the saddle of presidency — and much more firmly - the speculation abounds as to what his triumphant return would mean for the world aghast at an apparent victory, in other worlds, of the hubris, hypocrisies and hoaxes pursued by the reelected president in his first term. The questions are asked what Mr Bush do with his historic victory and how will the rest of the world react? Will he take his reelection as an endorsement of his first term and continue to pursue his strong arm methods also in the second term ? It is a bit early to find concrete answers to these questions. But traditionally during the second term US presidents are more interested in making their mark on history than on pandering to vested interests or wooing the electorate.
The conventional wisdom dictates that President Bush with all his platitudes and bromides will not wish to be remembered as a bumpkin who messed up things in Iraq. Even he is aware that an Israeli-Palestinian solution could be suffi-
ciently momentous to overshadow that disaster and more importantly he is capable of delivering it only if he wants. The neat theory goes that he may be willing to put pressure on Ariel Sharon to achieve an outcome acceptable to all -- thus improving his cachet in Europe and Islamic world. But unfortunately this possibility is contingent upon the assumption of a rational behaviour which Bush presidency driven by neocon ideology seldom practised.
What was, after all, the rational basis of Iraq invasion? The whole world stands testimony to the fact that the president did it arrogantly - - bypassing the world body, giving a damn to the views of his traditional European allies and flouting the international law. He fondly calls Sharon, the butcher of Sabra and Shatilla and author of so many targeted killings of the Palestinians, 'a man of peace’ which even his Likudite compatriots will be unwilling to do. Moreover, Sharon’s Gaza plan as well as his effective annexation of West Bank already enjoy Washin ton's imprimatur.
Against such a backdrop what is of grater likelihood is Bush’s another act of insanity -another
armageddon his ’voters' are seemingly fond of. There may be a proxy attack on Iran's nuclear facility at the US' behest - of course with a nod from Washington. Perhaps that's not all. The world has entered its most dangerous phase since the Cuban missile’crisis as an old balance of terror has been replaced by an ominous imbalance of terror where no nation comes even close to rivalling American military strength. And the last month's US
election outcome means that for the next four years the finger on the button that can unleash that military’s colossal fire power will belong to a fanatic who considers himself a messiah!
President Bush and his Republican faithfuls are, on their antiabortion stance, strictly adherent to Christian morality of a ’right to live'. But their "thou shall not kill'' applies only to American foetuses but not to numerous children in Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan. The born-again Christian evangelists have no qualm not only in killing those children but also in killing mothers carrying the foetuses in their chosen battle zones of the war on terror. And hoax? Contrary to all available evidences
the invention of a nexus between Saddam’s Iraq and 9/11 terrorist attack in the US or die presence of WMO in pre-invasion Iraq are the masterpieces of the neocons. They successfully sold those lies to confused and traumatised voters of post 9/11 America by playing on their fears and doubts.
Notwithstanding the diabolical campaign strategy helping Bush to reenter White House the man is not entirely unlikely to address some of
the burning international issues in Islamic world or elsewhere. The Muslim intellectuals have long been venting their grievances with regard to injustices meted out particularly to the Palestinians and a freehand given to the Israelis in doing whatever they intended to do to consolidate their hold in the region. Now both Afghanistan and Iraq are also sore points that agitate Muslim minds the world over and produce willing volunteers to be recruited by Al-Qaeda. According to International Institute of Strategic Studies (IISS) even after beatings in Iraq and Afghanistan Al-Qaeda can still draw on 18,000 operatives in 60 countries and the organisation has been galvanised by Iraq war. Therefore
these are not the issues that can be shelved indefinitely.
Although there is no obvious connection between Bush's reelection and an incipient Middle East initiative it is assumed in some quarters that such an initiative will figure prominently in Bush Administration's second term foreign policy. But then there are snags. Because for more than a couple of years the US and Britain have helped to sustain Ariel Sharon's self serving
fiction that the negotiation with the Palestinians would be pointless as there was no one to talk to. They found Arafat who was very much there to lead the Palestinians in any peace negotiation as he did earlier— unyielding to their design of imposing a settlement on the Palestinians. Therefore they wanted to bypass him and looked for a pliant partner to deal with.
More pliable leaders were not hard to find in the past and in the present milieu there wouldn't be any dearth of them but they wouldn't be able to carry the majority of Palestinians with them. As the head of a Palestinian Authority with so many limitations imposed on him Arafat drew much flak for its ineffec-
tiveness and corruption but that could not dent his image as an indispensable symbol of Palestinian national identity. From Palestinians' point of view Arafat’s decision back in 1988 to recognise Israel and restrict demand for a homeland only to West Bank and Gaza Strip — about one fifth of historical Palestine -was a monumental concession. No other Palestinian leader could authoritatively have submitted to the compromises he was able to risk. Although much of his stature diminished since his days as a revolutionary he was still left with so much of loyalty and trust of his people.
Yet the Bush-Blair duo in tune with Ariel Sharon did this great leader nothing worth talking to. Because Arafat also knew where to draw the line. He was widely excoriated in the west for turning down the package offered by Ehud Barak at Camp David in 2000 which was, according to 'peace brokers', most reasonable the Palestinians could hope for. But Arafat knew that a territory divided into 'Bantustans' would be unviabie as a sovereign state.
A great responsibility lies with Bush presidency during his second term to present America to the world in its true colours: a generous and humane America concerned with suffering humanity due to her omission and commission in its ruthless war on terror without addressing its causes. Amidst murky legacies on both sides how will she do it will be keenly watched by the world. But its compulsions are indeed enormous.
Brig (raid) Hafiz is former DG of BUSS.