After the American-British invasion of Iraq, which was opposed by the vast majority of nations, the verbal bashing of Americans has reached a crescendo as never before with even the usually reticent commentators throwing their punches.

Whatever the gains or losses of the two invaders of Iraq may be, it is quite apparent that the Global War on Terrorism, declared by President George Bush, has been pushed to a backseat even though international terrorism seems to be gaining hold in countries that have been free of it, particularly in South East Asia. The activists of the militant group Jemmah Islamiya have come to the notice of the authorities of Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines. This organisation is said to have connections with the Al Queda. Recently the Thai authorities uncovered a plot by the Jemmah Islamiah to bomb western embassies and tourist spots in Thailand.

While South East Asian governments have been attempting to work out regional co-operative arrangements to combat terrorism and are also conferring with the United States authorities, the continued occupation of Iraq by the US and British forces as well as their latest pronouncements on Iran and North Korea are making people of the Third World increasingly antagonistic towards the United States.

The strange and new development that most Third World countries have not come to terms with is that the George Bush administration unlike any other post World War 11US administration, does not seem to care much about world opinion, particularly Third World opinion. Unlike in the Cold War days, ‘winning hearts and minds’ of the developing countries appears to be given very low priority, unless of course American interests are involved. Quite apart from Third World opinion , he has even ignored his powerful European allies in going to war with Iraq. It does appear that President Bush will not hesitate to do so again if the occasion demands.

Today, in the ‘Telegraph’ page of The Island, Condoleeza Rice, the National Security Adviser of President George Bush has threatened that the US may act alone over the issue of nuclear programmes of North Korea and Iran. Addressing the London based International Institute of Strategic Studies, she had said that the US sought international co-operation in resolving the issues but added that ‘The avoidance of war is not in itself a final goal. Sometimes wars have to be fought to deal with tyrants’. What Ms. Rice’s address in London says in brief is that the US needs international support to achieve its objectives against ‘ dangerous regimes’ but if no such support is forthcoming, the US will act alone.

Critics in all regions of the world have taken moral high ground against President Bush riding roughshod over an independent and sovereign country and now for thinking aloud of repeat performances against North Korea and Iran.

In the Cold war era there were restraining influences on certain regimes such as on North Korea by the Soviet Union. But the absence of such restraining forces today, begs the question whether this kind of American aggression or some other restraining force is necessitated on such regimes. We certainly do not think it is applicable to Iran. In the Cold War era the balance of power not only restrained the superpowers and the big powers but also their proxies. But in today’s world could regimes under dictatorships though of sovereign states carry on free of any restraints on projects such as nuclear development programmes? Could they repress millions of their own people under their brutal dictatorships for decades, free of interference from foreign powers? What do the critics of Americans have to say of Saddam Hussien’s torture chambers, graveyards of his executed opponents and those alive whobear hideous scars of physical mutilation?

There are no rational answers to these questions. Those against the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, like India, have argued - and is still of the same view—- that the treaty is discriminatory. Why should only those five big powers be entitled to retain nuclear weapons and not let others develop them? On the other hand should a dangerous megalomaniac be left in deciding to push the nuclear button or not ? If the non-interference principle is accepted, should the world standby while the West African countries continue to slaughter each other as they are doing now? Why should the world powers now be interfering in Sri Lanka? as the LTTE asks.

On the other hand, what of international terrorism? Should it be permitted to rage unbridled? Some will pooh- pooh international terrorism on the grounds that only the Jews and Christians are targeted. But what happened to the Bamiyan statues ?

After the World War II, in 1945 at San Francisco, the nations of the world decided to set up the United Nations to resolve such disputes but the UN has been pushed to aside since then and is resorted to only by countries who find UN intervention favourable to their particular cause.

So, is President Bush to continue invading countries and throwing out regimes which he sincerely believes are evil ? Is there no justice in the world? his opponents ask.

We can only quote The Republic of Plato (1st c BC): Everywhere there is one principle of justice, which is the interest of the stronger.