The Bush Aftermath

- Dasu Krishnamoorty

Around this time last year when George W. Bush assumed office as the president of the United States, we welcomed in these columns his White House occupancy with some reservations. We referred to the presence of a powerful but dormant lobby in the Capitol corridors and in the media, prodding the U.S. administration to work for turning into reality the concept of American leadership of the world. We also mentioned that with Bush Jr. at the helm that goal was not impossible to achieve. Bush’s state of the union message comes very close to vindicating our assessment.

There is more of the world than of America in his speech, which meant different things to different countries, including India. Though he has discovered a new and dangerous ‘axis of evil’ threatening America’s security, he seems to have disowned some allies as no more useful unless they catch up with the US in its strike power. The speech indicated that it was now the duty of the United States to save not only itself but also the rest of the world from terrorism. Several media and military experts too endorsed Bush’s extraterritorial concern, which they have sought to immortalise as the Bush Doctrine. Some quarters chose to, despite misgivings, to shy away from questioning the validity of the doctrine. After the speech, it became easy for the president to seek an increase of $48 billion dollars for his defence budget of $379 billion, the largest such increase in the last two decades.

Like all men of action, the president seems to be in a great hurry saying “I will not wait on events while dangers gather. I will not stand by as peril draws closer and closer.’’ We have several explanations from columnists why Bush cannot wait but must pre-empt the mischief of the ‘axis of evil’ consisting of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. Well-known columnist William Safire supplies not only the logic of Bush programme but also the logistics of it. He says: “Iraq, of course, is the most immediate target. Because Saddam Hussein has dispersed his nuclear facilities and placed his germ warfare plants in such places as the Baghdad hospital, air strikes alone won’t meet the threat.” So, what should Bush do? Safire’s answer: “Supply arms and money to 70,000 Kurdish fighters in northern Iraq and a lesser Shiite force in the South, covering both with Predator surveillance and tactical U.S. air support.” He has similar explanations for intervention and suggestions about the form action should take.

When it came to the sub-continental scene, Bush had to be equivocal, taking care not to club Pervez Musharaf in the axis league because he was the staunchest ally in crushing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. This, however, is no blank cheque coming as it did with a rider binding the general with a clear “thus far and no further” restraint. Though some experts believe that Bush should have referred to ways of accomplishing peace in Kashmir, such a reference would have meant uninvited mediation, which is not acceptable to India. Yet Bush seems to have ignored what is happening in Pakistan, like the activities of Jaishe-e-Mohammed and Lashkar despite the general’s claim that they have been banned. The continuing terrorist attacks on the Kashmiri people and the attack on the U.S. Cultural Centre in Kolkata do not warrant Bush applauding the ‘bold leadership’ of the general.

There was some jubilation in certain circles in New Delhi arising from Bush bracketing India with allies like Russia and China. Bush had said that the United States was now working with Russia, China and India in ‘ways we have never before, to achieve peace and prosperity.’ This sentiment, however, does not seem to agree with the general stridency of Bush’s message declaring a universal and even unilateral war on terrorism and yet omit to refer to Pakistan’s cross-border terrorism of which India is a direct victim. The official South Block reaction was to assert that Bush’s inclusion of India in the same group as China and Russia “really points to the increasing dialogue and co-operation that is developing between the United States and India.”

India will, of course, respond to Bush’s invitation to join the company of China and Russia and is busy renovating its relations with both the countries. Moscow, which is wary of the new Bush doctrine, is busy updating and upgrading its strategic ties with New Delhi while all the three countries, invited by Bush to join his larger campaign to create peace and prosperity, are seriously considering the desirability of forging a triangular strategic partnership. Indian defence officials, at the same time, are already interacting with an American defence team on matters of military co-operation. However, this euphoria has to be informed by familiar realities like mutually exclusive global plans of the US, Russia and China even as they strive to combine for the common good of fighting terrorism and making the earth a peace haven. In short, India has an open mind on negotiating its relation with the three global powers.

The Bush oration does not seem to have gone well with his European allies. It seemed to them that Bush is seeing everywhere a threat to US security to justify the extension of American military presence everywhere. For example, Bush mentioned not only Iraq, Iran and North Korea but also Philippines, the Middle East and Africa. European commentators were surprised at the go-it-alone refrain of Bush’s speech. Dmitri Rogozin, chairman of Russia‘s parliamentary committee on foreign affairs, said that the state of the union message had entirely overlooked the fact that North Korea had imposed a moratorium on the production of long-range missiles. As a result, it has yet to test an intercontinental-range missile that could deliver a nuclear payload. Take Iran. It has co-operated with the Bonn conference on knitting together an interim government for Afghanistan, a fact acknowledged by the State Department. Iraq has offered to invite a fresh UN inspection of its nuclear sites.

In other European capitals too, there was some disquiet at Bush’s speech. Josef Joffe, a German foreign policy analyst, said: “What was particularly striking is the way Mr Bush countenances the projection of American power from anywhere to everywhere. He described America in a truly global war able to fight anywhere. There is no allusion to allies at all. But in practical terms, the U.S. cannot fight wars without allies.” A French TV editorialist said the speech belonged to a sheriff convinced of his right to regulate the planet and impose punishment as he sees it. In Germany, media offered sympathies to their chancellor who is now on a visit to Washington. One editorial said, “Poor Gerhard Schroder, it cannot be easy being the first grumpy European to appear at the throne of the freshly anointed American Ceaser.” Even in the U.S., people saw the speech as tending to lead to a distance between the United States and the rest of the world.

Somehow, Bush seems to have faltered in declaring that he would use the national unity forged by the war against terrorism toward the twin causes of creating jobs for those worst hit by the recession and promoting a spirit of national service. This easily leads to the assumption that war is the best weapon to forge national unity or create more jobs.

To sum up in the words of caution of the New York Times; “The application of power and intimidation has returned to the forefront of America’s foreign policy. Mr Bush appears to be developing an assertive new military doctrine that includes the threat of armed intervention against nations that are developing weapons that may put the United States in peril. The evolving Bush Doctrine implies a pre-emptive use of conventional force to take out missile launchers, industrial enterprises and facilities that appear to be involved in the fabrication of unconventional weapons. The apparent success of the Afghan campaign should not encourage Mr Bush to overreach.”

Disclaimer