War and its pieces

Bush sights the world beyond Kabul. First a few questions

FOR a man who had pledged to patiently accumulate successes in his country’s war against terror, US President George Bush has switched gear rather rapidly. Tuesday’s State of the Union address provides a sharp contrast to the speeches aired since the September 11 attacks. Bush has charted out the next phase of the war — which he says has only just begun. Now that B-2s have installed Hamid Karzai in Kabul, his attention has shifted, and Iraq, Iran and North Korea have been put on notice. The American President has redesignated these three countries, thus far only condemned as rogue regimes, as ‘‘the axis of evil’’. It is perhaps par for the course for him that the first gasps he has elicited are over semantics. If his post-WTC declaration of a ‘‘crusade’’ against terror led to a quick change in phraseology, the use of the word axis has prompted queries, whether he seeks to summon memories of World War II and the Nazi threat. It is a small matter, sorting out misunderstandings over his creative use of the English language comes easy to George W.

However, keeping together the international coalition against terrorism may now prove to be rather more tricky for the US. Its European and other key allies — bar Britain which remains America’s delayed echo — fear that the 48-minute speech affirms Washington’s unilateral bent. Now that they have been enrolled in Operation Afghanistan, they are bound to go through the address with a microscope to find the exact implications of Bush’s warning that if nations do not act against terrorism, ‘‘America will’’. More specifically, the repercussions of announcing this three-nation axis are varied. Governments around the world, India’s and Britain’s among them, have for long been engaging Iran. Its government has played a constructive role in toppling the Taliban and urging caution to ambitious pro-Iran warlords. Hopes have been voiced that moderates in the country are gathering strength. Bush’s rhetoric could revert Iran to isolationism. The strident warning to North Korea, the abrupt end to Clinton’s policy of engaging Pyongyang, has already resulted in worried utterances from officials in South Korea, Japan and China, all of them focussed on the destabilising potential of an American operation against the Hermit Kingdom. It is interesting that Bush will visit these three East Asian countries in coming weeks. Lastly, the consensus on action against Iraq is considerably stronger, at least within the US. But countries like Turkey, anxious about the implications for their restive Kurdish population, are bound to be insistent that they be consulted before any operation is finalised. America’s friends and allies will certainly be queuing up for clarifications.

On the other hand, India could extract some comfort from the nuances in the address. Bush’s insistence that countries act against terrorism — along with a reiteration of the threat posed by groups like the Jaish-e-Mohammed — could be construed as a commitment to lean upon Pakistan to annihilate the terrorist network on its soil. So, it’s a heavy burden the US president carries now: he must reassure an uneasy international community, while being seen to act upon his words.