For the Bush administration, which, in the past three years, has unveiled itself as a den of neo-conservative Republicans, it is a little difficult to come to terms with its disposition to the Annan-planned reforms – if, indeed, it’s the same Washington that’s trying to spread the gospel of freedom and democracy to all corners of the world. Some of the views expressed so far by associates of the Bush administration are not quite encouraging. They seem, in the mass, to reflect the thinking of a Washington that is still inexorably husbanded to the fashionable postures of the immediate post-World War II years: the pride and satisfaction taken from the conquest of the Nazis, the Japanese and their allies; and, in the late 20th Century, a triumphal arrogance informed by the crumbling of communism to the happiness of democracy. These are war-time postures, which are incompatible with a global cry for a re-invention of the world order in the interest of human rights and social justice. The behaviour of the neo-conservatives tends to reflect a Washington that appears blinded to the fact that one of the enduring lessons of global politics, after the events of September 11, 2001, is that it is no longer a unipolar world, over which – for the first time, since its appearance in the theatre of global politics as a super power in 1898 – it could exclusively control. Put charitably, Washington – as the uncrowned leader of the free world – needs some newly-recognised, if able, regional allies with which it re-make the world. It needs the co-operation of other countries in the campaign against global terror. And that’s a co-operation for which, in real terms, it has to trade some concessions.

The steady opposition being offered by China – as a well-squared regional competitor, so recognised by President George W. Bush; and the refusal – on persuasively moral grounds and respect for international law – by an influential section of “old Europe” – France and Germany – to be party to the invasion of and occupation of Iraq – are clear indications of an emerging new world order blessed with new, and quite visible regional powers. There’s Asia, which Beijing is set to lead and the European Union, which would have to heed the words of both Bonn and Paris. These developments to the checking of a Washington that is desirous of bestriding the free, democratic world. It presupposes that, as these regional powers consolidate their grips, Washington may have to be contented with its original, anti-communist sphere of influence in the Americas. >From that point, will it have to insist, with the assistance of other regional powers, on the global war against terrorism. It is not a very comfortable assessment of Washington’s geo-political fortunes in the 21st Century. Perhaps, it explains why some neo-conservatives are insisting on a different form of reform of the world body. If they cannot get what they want – budgetary discipline, and the definition of terrorism, say – Washington should pull out of the world body to lead the formation of a “United Nations of Democratic States.” There is an implied opposition, here, to the intended reform by Annan of the Security Council. In a post-Soviet world order, countries that are not genuinely democratic – even those with the best African credentials, like Nigeria and South Africa – should be kept outside the Security Council. There is an unspoken threat that Washington – against the run of informed advice – that its understandably huge strategic interests in global politics are better protected by augmenting the world body with its near-limitless resources – in the event of the UNDS, might cease sorely-needed financial contributions to the U.N. and its agencies. And why not! It’s doubtful, given Annan’s planned reforms, whether such neo-conservative arrogance would hold sway. Neo-conservative Republicans feel they are the targets of the reforms each time Annan refers to human rights. They, naturally, ought to squirm at such a reference: the demand that all member-states ratify and implement all treaties relating to the protection of civilians – to the extent that Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib are not only antithetical to the supposedly tidy gospel of freedom and democracy, which they preach, but also that the illegal seizure and imprisonment of innocent individuals, have dented Washington’s image abroad. Add the blemish and embarrassment caused by the lies about ex-president Saddam Hussein’s possession of weapons of mass destruction, which they told to justify the invasion and occupation of Iraq. All that was at the price of sacrilege to the sanctity of international law. Still, it’s doubtful whether the neo-conservatives are aware that it shouldn’t have taken Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib to inform Annan’s attempt to see a more humane global human rights record. The neo-conservatives are a part of a government which has the singular global honour of holding the largest number of its citizens in brig.

And until they see the appealing rational behind Annan’s reforms – reforms which they ought to buy into as auxiliaries for propagating freedom and democracy – they may find themselves, in default, readying Washington for the Huntingtonian ‘clash of civilisations’ with faceless terrorists. Annan’s quest for a global human rights renaissance is, in part, a thinly veiled indictment of Washington’s foreign policy in the Middle East. Why – well after the melting of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War – should Washington, while preaching democracy and freedom, be associating with crowns and palaces, whose habits are unhelpful to its global assignment? Such egregious compromise ethics and moral ambiguity that tend to be viscerally disdainful of human rights may be deeply harmful to Washington’s strategic interests in the Middle East. The unholy alliance which neo-conservatives insist on fostering between Washington and the repressive regimes of the Middle East would have been okay were the White House that markedly intolerant of informed opposition or the obsecrations of American workers, tax-payers and voters.

But, by Annan’s reforms, a sanguinary clash of civilisation could well be helped; be it with such reminders as the blasts in London or Sharm el-Sheikh or the unrelenting bloodshed in Iraq. Yes, Annan agrees with the Bush administration’s effort to sell freedom and democracy on a global scale, but some top officials of the U.N. question just how well Washington could succeed in its global assignment, amid the rapidly notching hatred amongst Arab and Moslem youths for what is seen as an unveiled crusade against the Crescent creed spearheaded by an inflexibly ‘Christian’ White House. Annan fears the possibility of an egregious clash of civilisation in that the carriage and pronouncements of the neo-conservative Republicans do not reflect global realities. Put differently, is it possible to have freedom and democracy – as narrowly defined by the Bush administration, without a welcome ventilation of society: multi-party political system and tolerance for (constructive or loyal) opposition; in the Arab world, for instance, without due respect for human rights? With human rights, Washington still has a good chance to reach out to middle-aged, if justifiably jumpy, Arabs and Moslems, who feel quite visibly aggrieved by the events in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo and the policy by America to back the repressive regimes in their countries – repressive regimes that allow them just a grudging room for self-expression. Empty Guantanamo of innocent Arabs and Moslems. Make penance, in sackcloth, for breaching the biblical injunction: “Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour; as well expressed in Washington’s brazen lie against Saddam. The U.S. should tender an unreserved apology – as a sign of maturity by a country that craves, with a touch of popular appeal, the leadership of the free world, for a wrong: the ouster of Saddam; committed rather too hastily to the breaching of the values that Washington cherishes so much. That way, potential terrorists would have cause to reconsider their intents, and what is left of a far-from-well-co-ordinated war against global terrorism may become less expensive. It took the disintegration of the Soviet Union and, impliedly, the burial of communism, for respect for human rights to dawn in Central and South America. Will it, in the Arab/Moslem world, take the creation of an independent Palestinian State? *Uzuakpundu is a journalist on the Foreign Affairs Desk of a Lagos-based newspaper – VANGUARD.