THE might of the preeminent has prevailed. Bush and Blair bypassed the United Nations Security Council and started the war for ousting President Saddam Hussein from power and disarming Iraq. America’s neo-colonialism and its ‘doctrine of pre-emptive action’ are aimed at converting independent Iraq into a colony.

The motives of Bush and Blair are dubious and they have indulged in the game of power to rape Iraq. Peace is gone. War is on. US allegations that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and Saddam had not cooperated with the UN inspection team misfired and stood exposed. The reports submitted by chief UN weapon inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamad AlBaradei to the UN Security Council clearly stated that Iraq was cooperating with them. Both had requested for additional time to complete their work. This was not acceptable to the US and Britain because their agenda was war, not inspections. After all, 300,000 troops had not been prepositioned in the Gulf for picnic. Their return home without combat duty might have posed serious political problems for Bush and Blair.

French President Jacques Chirac declared, “Iraq is certainly not an immediate danger to anybody, and doesn’t justify any unilateral declaration of war.” This view is largely shared by most countries in the world — including Russia, China and Germany, to name a few — by the UN Secretary-General and by European Union, Organization of Islamic Conference and Arab League. President Bush disregarded the global concern and declared in his ultimatum address that “the tyrant will soon be gone.”

Saddam may go. War in Iraq is an unequal contest — a conflict between a giant and a pigmy in which Iraq shall be defeated in a matter of weeks. Such is the overwhelming superiority of one side and the military imbalance between the antagonists. Whether or not Saddam Hussein is guilty is now an irrelevant question. He has to go because the US has so decided. Washington has planned to impose its agenda on the Middle East and promote its own geo-political, strategic, economic and oil interests. The road map of the Middle East (details not yet known) is likely to establish the preeminence of Israel in the region. It may also convey signals that oil-producing countries dare not use or threaten to use oil as a weapon in any major conflict in the future.

It is now well known that just one week after the tragic incidents of 9/11, President Bush had ordered the preparation of a plan to attack Iraq. Bush needed a spectacular victory, diplomatically and/or militarily, for diverting US public attention from the US intelligence failure in anticipating and preventing attacks on the Twin Towers and elsewhere. The slogan of war against terror emerged out of this fear syndrome. The defeat of Afghanistan neither erased the anger of the people of America nor assuaged their feeling of outrage and anger. The media trial of Al Qaeda that followed kept US fears alive. A dramatic action was needed to restore the confidence of the American people. A stunning victory in Iraq could divert US public attention away from the horrors of 9/11. Besides, success in war may influence the outcome of the US presidential election due in 2004. Much is at stake for President Bush.

Reportedly, a plan has been made for governing occupied Iraq on ‘democratic’ lines. Whether or not an alien model of a democratic order can meet the needs and aspirations of the people of Iraq remains to be seen. Iraqis are a weak but proud nation with old history, a developed culture, a rich language and traditions that date back to ancient times. Its history is full of toil and turmoil. Will the people of Iraq accept dictation on who should govern them and how is an open question. The US and Britain may soon learn that it is easy to win a war against a weak country, but is difficult to win the hearts and minds of the defeated people.

Truth, it is said, is the first victim in war. Remember the 1991 war? In that war the allied high command fed the world with half-truths and blatant lies. Facts were suppressed as a matter of policy. The brutality of the attackers was seen when US troops bulldozed wounded Iraqis and buried them under heaps of sand. The on-going war may be as ferocious, if not more. The whole truth about this war shall emerge decades later when passions are no more and war accounts are made public.

What may emerge out of this war is worth examining. One: it is naive to argue that the US is spending time, money, effort and risking military casualties for the love of democracy in Iraq. Its goals are deeper and more sinister than is realized. The much-publicized road map for the Middle East is likely to establish Israel as the regional preeminent power with Palestine as its client state. Obviously, the word ‘client’ will be suitably sugarcoated in diplomatic verbiage to make it palatable and digestible. Besides, the control of Iraqi oil will be a major gain.

Two: the UN has been bypassed, subdued and humiliated. Its image has nose-dived. Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s voice of sanity is drowned in the roar and thunder of arrogance of power and booming of guns. The UN stands at a crossroads and faces a danger of extension. It can either wither away like the League of Nations or emerge out of the present crisis like a Phoenix.This silver lining is a positive development and it creates hope for the future.

The firm stand taken by countries like France, Russia, China and Germany is an indication that in the months and years ahead the UN may show greater vitality and strength in handling world affairs. In its own interest the UN must prove to the world that it is not the poodle of any power. This does not imply that the unipolar world will cease to exist. However, major countries exerting their influence in support of the UN can improve the image of this world body.

Three: some major European powers have resented the US attitude of taking their support for granted. This insult is unacceptable to the European countries that take pride in their history, culture and traditions. The US policy differences with the European Union countries is a blow to their unity. Hopefully, the damage will be temporary. The split within the European Union is also harmful for itself. The solidarity of NATO lies in tatters. Given reason, logic and their common interests, some of these fissures may eventually be ironed out. However, bitter memories may persist for long. The EU is likely to exert its independence more aggressively in the future as compared to what it did in the past.

Four: the disunity in the Muslim world is rather palpable. The Organization of Islamic Conference and the Arab League have failed to play a meaningful role in the on-going crisis. The internal division in the Muslim world have been exploited and this trend may continue, to their own disadvantage. The possibility of other Muslim countries being targeted on some pretext cannot be ruled out. The Iraq war is a wake-up call for them. They must put their political, economic, technological and military houses in order individually and collectively, or face the consequences of divisions and differences.

Five: the lessons of history are unmistakable. There is no alternative to internal strength. Countries defend themselves, and those that cannot do so run the risk of losing their independence and sovereignty. External help is at best a bonus that cannot be relied upon particularly when the chips are down. The Iraqi conundrum proves that economic wealth without matching sinews of power can become a serious liability.

Six: the media plays a vital role in the present-day crises and wars. The global media is largely controlled by the western powers. Its reporting is often one-sided, frequently biased and usually unfair. The control of the media by one power bloc is a food for thought for the Muslim world. How many wars must they lose before they realize that media war precedes every shooting war and all diplomatic battles need strong media support? The OIC must take immediate steps to remove this deficiency and launch its own networks dedicated to projecting the Muslim point of view on issues of concern.

A great responsibility lies on all powers, including the US and Britain, to assure weak countries that their legitimate rights, independence and sovereignty will invariably be respected. No country has the right to impose its own model of governance and culture on other independent states. Global peace demands tolerance and understanding and respect for the universally recognized norms of behaviour from all countries. The era of the law of the jungle is over. Those who resort to it should be condemned and punished. Let the UN rise to the occasion.

The writer is a retired general of the Pakistan army.

IRRESPECTIVE of the final outcome of the US-led war on Iraq with its far reaching ramifications, the economic future of Pakistan depends on large and sustained investment — the missing link in our economic scenario. And that can ensure rapid economic growth, higher employment, poverty reduction, larger exports, higher revenues and cumulative socio-economic progress.

All these factors are more or less dependent on each other. If some of them are promoted at the cost of others or by neglecting them the totality of the progress can be too small and the political ride too bumpy.

The State Bank of Pakistan in its annual report for 2001-2002 says there had been no significant decline in unemployment in the years 2001 and 2002 and the rate would remain unchanged unless economic growth and the investment scenario changes significantly. But there has not been significant enough changes in the investment scenario to make a major change in the employment level in a country in which about a million people enter the job market every year. The State bank places the unemployment figure at 7.8 per cent for 2000, but if the casually or occasionally employed are accounted for the total of the unemployed is far more in a country where the women form a small part of the regular work force.

Even if the official figures are accepted the number of the unemployed has risen from 5.9 per cent in 1998 to 7.8 per cent in 2000 and that explains the increase in poverty in the 1990s. So as the population goes on rising, less number of people will get employed properly and the number of the unemployed will increase and aggravate the social and political tensions in a country which has enough of them along with rising unemployment suicides.

We are now told that poverty reduction-related expenditure is to be increased in the next year’s budget beginning July 1 by Rs. 20 billion under pressure from international aid agencies from Rs. 160 billion this year to Rs. 180 billion and the provinces are to be asked to spend more on poverty reduction. What matters is not how much more is allocated but how well that is spent and the desired results achieved? The gap between the impressive financial figures and the reality on the ground has to be bridged and poverty reduced on a sustained basis over a five-year period.

The World Bank says the rich in Pakistan are living as happily as the rich in other countries, including the West but the poor are getting poorer on too many counts beginning with drinking water. Will the politicians who have come to office really devote themselves to solving the problems of the poor? If they were getting their votes on the basis of merit and their past performance, they would have been attending to the problems of the poor far more diligently. But that is not the reality of our political order.

The State Bank of Pakistan which through its annual report had called for adequate investment and sustained employment creation now says the current spending of the government increased by 9.6 per cent during the first half of the current financial year ending December 31st, while its development outlay rose by a nominal Rs. 0.6 billion. And that indeed is deplorable.

The officials are said to explain that by stating that was due to the elections and the Election Commission has asked the government not to spend on development lest that invited the charge of partisan spending. This is a wholly unacceptable plea as no political party was in office during the last three years of military rule.

The fact is that development spending has always been a victim of budgetary constraints while there was always enough money for current expenditure. If the cash was not there in the kitty that was readily borrowed even at times when the rates of interest were dizzy. Development spending has always been a postponable item. Hence the current gross under development and grossly inadequate infrastructure which hampers industrial growth.

Dr. Hafeez Shaikh, Advisor to the Prime Minister on Investment, has set up a task force to suggest the means to increase investment rapidly and sustain that. The group is reported to have suggested raising the investment to 20 per cent of the GDP from the current 14 to 15 per cent. Total investment came down to 13.8 per cent last year from 20.1 per cent in 1991-92 and 20.7 per cent in 1992-93. If the task force wants the country to go back to that level by 2006 that is not enough. We don’t need a task force to suggest that if it has already done that. The target should be raised to 25 per cent of the GDP within three to five years and to 30 per cent by the year 2010 as this means total investment and not industrial investment alone.

That means the low national savings rate has to go up above 15.5 per cent and domestic saving above 14.7 per cent. And that can cut across the efforts of the banks to promote consumer banking which helps the people buy today and pay with tomorrow’s earnings. That kind of consumption has left the U.S. too with a low rate of domestic saving which is often 5 per cent of its GDP.

India has been able to make far more industrial progress because of its domestic savings rate of 22 to 24 per cent which the former finance minister Dr. Manmohan Singh wants to be raised to 35 per cent. Aggressive consumer banking and that kind of high savings rate do not go together. But he insists that it is essential to achieve a steady eight per cent economic growth rate instead of the six per cent it has been making while the target is 8 per cent like that of China’s.

There are three kinds of investment: private sector investment, foreign investment, and public sector investment. When the domestic private sector is shy and makes too little real investment the foreign investor will not make large investment. And when neither sector is making adequate investment as has been happening since the mid-1990s the government has to make far larger public sector investment. It has to create the kind of infrastructure which will tempt the entrepreneurs to invest and make foreign investors too to get excited about investing in Pakistan. That is not happening in Pakistan and so the official development expenditure came down to 3.5 per cent of the GDP last year after it had sunk to a record low of 2.2 percent the year before.

During the current year a public sector outlay of Rs. 134 billion was proposed to mark a modest increase from Rs. 123 billion the year before. But not much of the increased outlay had been spent in the first half of the year. The allocation for next year is yet to be decided, while the current expenditure lays claim to larger funds.

Meanwhile, we are told a new infrastructure fund is planned and a cabinet committee has been set up under commerce minister Humayun Akhtar to settle the details. The fund is to be financed through special bonds for 5 to 20 years. The provincial governments too are to be authorised to issue such bonds for their projects. The new bonds are to be given the same kind of tax exemptions given to the Term Finance Certificates of companies but the IMF is insisting that all tax exemptions in respect of withholding tax should be withdrawn. It wants the tax exemption for national savings schemes to be withdrawn and the rate of interest reduced to the level of Pakistan Investment Funds around 4 per cent. The public may not be ready to lend much to the government at such low interest as the tax exemption too goes off along with that.

If the infrastructure fund is to be financed through heavy borrowing the projects should be well managed and made paying after their construction is completed. That means enough industries should be coming up in such developed areas, making full use of them and paying the cost of such projects over the years.

Meanwhile the government and the country have to face the fallout of the war on Iraq as Pakistan’s export economy will be badly affected. The war risk insurance and higher shipping costs may make Pakistan’s exports more costly to their importers.

Meanwhile the world oil prices may go up and tempt the Pakistan government to raise oil prices at home further. And more Pakistanis earnings their livelihood in the Gulf and sending their remittances home may come back and that can ultimately reduce our home remittance earnings, which otherwise could rise upto four billion dollars. The government should not raise oil prices irrationally at home as it has already done. This is the time to lower its high petroleum surcharge earnings instead of increasing them and upsetting the economy altogether.

FIRST there was the bluster about slapping duties on imports from countries opposing war with Iraq. Then came the imbroglio about “freedom fries,” and calls for boycotts against French and German goods — the latest being a series of articles in the New York Post urging readers to shun products made by “the beret-wearing escargot eaters.”

Discord over the Iraq war is putting uncomfortable strains on economic links between the United States and Europe, a relationship that many view as a cornerstone of global prosperity. Guardians of transatlantic harmony are scrambling to keep the diplomatic rift from poisoning economic ties.

Last week, for example, Guenter Burghardt, the ambassador of the European Union to the United States, came armed with data illustrating Europe’s economic importance when he paid a visit to Sen. George Allen, R-Va., the new chairman of a Senate subcommittee on European affairs. The ambassador’s figures suggested that the senator’s constituents might pay a stiff price if the dispute over Iraq were to spill into the economic sphere.

“I showed him my chart about the European Union and Virginia,” Burghardt recalled. “He saw for the first time that 34 per cent of Virginia’s exports go to the European Union, and 74 percent of foreign direct investment in Virginia comes from the European Union.” The upshot, according to the ambassador: “I think this senator will become part of the constituency we need” to keep economic tensions in check.

Economic relations between the United States and Europe run deep, making the cost of a serious rupture almost too high to contemplate. Of the more than $5 trillion in assets held by American companies overseas, nearly three-fifths is in Europe. European firms hold about $3.3 trillion in U.S. assets, or slightly more than two-thirds of the foreign holdings in the United States. European firms employ an estimated 4.4 million Americans, and the number of Europeans employed by U.S. companies is only slightly less.

But the animosity that has flared of late appears almost certain to seep into trans-Atlantic trade and investment issues, especially those involving the United States and France, where the mutual antagonism is the most intense.

One obvious bone of contention concerns the awarding of reconstruction contracts in postwar Iraq; French officials from President Jacques Chirac on down are vehemently objecting to indications from Washington that the rebuilding will be an American-run undertaking, with U.S. corporations in line for preferred treatment.

The French Embassy has received a half-dozen or so reports in recent days of sizable U.S. corporations cutting off business with French banks, according to Jean-Francois Boittin, the embassy’s minister-counsellor for economic and commercial affairs. He declined to name the parties involved but said of the anti-French campaign under way in the United States: “I for one think it’s not so much a spontaneous mobilization, but all very well politically organized.”

Large corporations doing business across the Atlantic and their governments say they are monitoring developments closely and finding only scattered signs of the war’s impact on purchasing and investment choices _ for example, a Web site selling French cheese over the Internet that has reported a 20 percent drop-off in business.

Pernod Ricard, the French liquor group that owns Martell cognac and Ricard pastis, said last week that it had seen scant evidence of a boycott, though it postponed its 2003 financial forecast because of uncertainties about whether its products will be targeted. In one prominent case, a major transatlantic business deal went ahead in the face of war tensions _ Procter & Gamble Co.’s announcement of plans to acquire control of Wella AG, the German hair-products maker, for $5.75 billion.

Beyond the question of how consumers and businesses are acting lie longer-term concerns — that lingering acrimony among top policy-makers will spark tit-for-tat trade wars, and wreck the U.S.-European cooperation needed to strike a worldwide trade accord that could help spur global growth.

U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick sought to allay such concerns. “The analogy I would urge you to consider is that after September 11th, there were a spate of stories about how this would lead to closure of international economic relations and trade,” Zoellick said in an interview. “And we actually employed it, along with other things, to push the launch of the Doha negotiations,” a reference to the city in Qatar where agreement was reached at a World Trade Organization meeting in November 2001 to initiate a new round of global trade talks.

Zoellick also noted that rhetoric about being “joined at the hip” filled the air during a visit to Washington a couple of weeks ago by Pascal Lamy, the EU’s trade commissioner. Despite opposition toward Washington’s Iraq policy in Lamy’s native France, “we both recognize that part of our task is to look ahead in terms of strengthening the international economy,” Zoellick said.

But U.S.-EU differences on trade were already vast, and the possibility clearly exists that ill feeling over the war between Washington and big EU member states will only make the gaps harder to bridge. Last week, both sides rejected a compromise proposal on one of the thorniest issues in the WTO negotiations: how to pare the multibillion-dollar subsidies that rich countries give their farmers, which cause overproduction of crops and depress world prices, hurting farmers in poor nations. As a result, chances are rising that the negotiators will miss a series of deadlines they set at Doha for reaching interim agreements necessary to build momentum toward a final deal in 2005. Although trade officials note that the final deadline is still off in the future, the danger looms of a much sourer atmosphere, especially if economic dealings are contaminated by war considerations.

Any American assault that might be launched against French or German economic interests would face strict legal limits. WTO rules bar governments from treating the products of WTO member countries any worse than they treat those from all other member countries. And battling the EU would mean picking a fight not only with Paris and Berlin, but with member states that are Washington’s staunchest allies in Iraq, including Britain and Spain.

Still, like Ambassador Burghardt, some firms are nervous enough about the economic side effects of transatlantic sniping that they are doing all they can to spread the word that the U.S.-European commercial and financial relationship is vital for both sides.

DaimlerChrysler Corp., which prides itself on being the largest transatlantic company, is bankrolling the distribution costs, such as printing and public presentations, for a study documenting the stakes that the United States and Europe have in each other’s economies. The study’s author, Joseph P. Quinlan, a fellow with the Centre for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University, presented his work at a National Press Club lunch on Thursday, and DaimlerChrysler hopes to hold another such lunch for people in Congress and the administration.

Quinlan argues in his study that the already-enormous links between the United States and Europe have been growing rapidly in recent years, notwithstanding all the hoopla about American firms moving operations to Asia and Latin America. He places particular emphasis on the direct investment by European companies in American plants and equipment, and similar investment by U.S. companies in Europe.

Over the past decade, “U.S. companies did go to places like Brazil and India, but for every dollar they put abroad, half, or a little more, went to Europe,” Quinlan told the press club audience. “And conversely, of all the foreign direct investment in the United States, three-quarters of that came from Europe.”

Such figures have to be placed in context: Foreign direct investment accounts for only about 12.5 percent of all spending on plants and equipment in the United States. And of that foreign investment, the biggest single source is British firms; the French and the Germans together accounted for a little more than 22 percent of all foreign direct investment.

Still, Quinlan contends that the web of production and supply relationships between U.S. and European companies is so tight that Americans can’t easily give up the products associated with countries they dislike without hurting some of their fellow citizens in some way.

For example, refusing to buy a Mercedes on the grounds of its German origin makes little sense, Quinlan said. “Recognize that an Alabama worker helped build that,” he said. —Dawn/Washington Post Service

“THERE are two tragedies in life”, George Bernard Shaw once said, “One is to lose your heart’s desire. The other is to gain it”. Victory without war was what America achieved in the cold war, a victory which has now obliged it to confront the dilemma described by George Bernard Shaw.

“It is the burden of being the only superpower”, Nixon once wrote, “that there are things we do not wish to do that we must do, and it is the burden of being a responsible superpower that there are things we wish to do that we cannot do”. America, the world’s sole surviving superpower, needs to demonstrate by example that there are certain rules that everybody has to follow, one of the most important of which is that you don’t invade another country for any but the most compelling of reasons.

Since the time America entered the arena of world politics in 1917, it has been so preponderant in strength and so convinced of the rightness of its ideals that the last century’s major international agreements have been embodiments of American values — from the League of Nations to the United Nations. When America entered the international arena it had the power to make the world conform to its vision of international relations. Today the United States is in less of a position to insist on the immediate realization of all its desires. It tries in vain to convince a sceptical world that its own values are universally applicable and that it has an obligation to crusade for them around the world.

For the first time, the United States can neither withdraw from the world nor dominate it. There can be only two outcomes of this global confrontation. Either America dominates all the others and creates an empire or fails to achieve that goal. In the latter case, America will be kept in check by an alliance of forces opposed to any kind of hegemony representing a balance of power factor.

In the former case, the United Nations will become irrelevant and wither because empires have no interest in operating within an international system; they aspire to be the international system themselves. That is how the United States has conducted its foreign policy in the Americas and that is why it has discarded the UN system and now seeks to impose its will by force on the rest of the world.

For two decades after the end of the Second World War, America had taken the lead in building a new international order out of the fragments of a shattered world. The countries under the American umbrella were enjoying peace and stability. During the course of the 20th century, one president after another proclaimed that America had no “selfish” interest; that its principal, if not the only, international goal was universal peace and progress. In this spirit, Truman, in his inaugural address of January 20, 1949, had committed his country to the objective of a world in which “all nations and all peoples are free to govern themselves as they see fit”. No purely national interest would be pursued. “We have sought no territory. We have imposed our will on none. We have asked for no privileges we would not extend to others”.

Kennedy carried the theme of America’s selflessness and duty to the world a step further. “Let every nation know”, he said, “whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty”.

The US has always had a love-hate relationship with the United Nations. Back in 1946, welcoming the UN to the US, President Truman promised a new era of American engagement, declaring: “The American people look on the UN not as a temporary expedient but as a permanent partnership, a partnership among the peoples of the world for their common peace and common well-being”. In the intervening decades, however, the cold war took its toll on both US and Soviet Union. The Security Council authorized war on North Korea in 1950 after the Soviet Union stayed away.

Now the cold war is over and the US can determine its own relationship with the international organization. It has no serious competitor for its awesome military and economic muscle. It helped found the UN. “We want the UN to be effective and respectful and successful”, President Bush declared in September last. “Our partnership of nations can meet the test before us, by making clear what we now expect of the Iraqi regime”. After several exhausting weeks, the Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1441, demanding immediate Iraqi disarmament.

The problem, however, arose when after four months of intense lobbying, the US and UK were not able to persuade the international community that there was a very serious danger of production and use of weapons of mass destruction by Iraq. Many feared that in its frustration, the US might brush aside all other considerations and act unilaterally. This is exactly how it has happened. It has confirmed some of the world’s worst fears about George W. Bush’s America: that when the United Nations refuses to bend to its will, and when allies will not go along, it will go ahead and act — as it did on last Thursday morning when US and British forces invaded Iraq under cover of an intense artillery barrage as cruise missiles pounded targets in Baghdad.

This flagrant breach of international law by Bush will have profound consequences for the peace of the world in the years to come. The world is back where it was 100 years ago. “This is a critically important stage for the UN”, Kofi Annan said a few days ago. But “the Council and the UN will not go the way of the League of Nations. The UN is much, much larger than the Iraqi crisis”.

Under the UN Charter, he had earlier said, military force is legally permitted only if it is sanctioned by the Security Council or used in self-defence. This would have been the case if the UN had passed a new resolution authorizing the use of force to disarm Iraq. There is no self-defence justification either because there is no evidence that Iraq was poised to attack anyone.

Today the United States finds itself in a place where it has never been before: openly, unashamedly, starting a war that the Security Council says cannot be conducted in its name. Bush has unleashed a totally unjust, unprovoked and unwarranted war — a war that bears the two major hallmarks of Vietnam: hubris and solipsism. In his schemes of things, treaties are not considered binding. The war on terror is used to topple weak regimes. His message to the world seems to be: Take dictation. No wonder, very few respect America today. The poor and the weak are scared to death and fear the world’s sole superpower.

In the eyes of Muslims throughout the world, America is perceived today as the greatest threat to the world of Islam. His war against Iraq is marked by what the Greeks call “ate”: the intoxicating pride and overweening arrogance that sometimes clouds the minds of the strong.

Today America seems to be experiencing what Toynbee called “the dark night of the soul”. Today America has lost the high moral ground it once occupied. It stands virtually alone in the comity of nations, forsaken by most of its erstwhile friends and allies. There was a time when great causes pushed America to great heights that would not otherwise be achieved. That is no longer the case. Before there were three faces of America in the world — the face of Peace Corps, the face of multinationals and the face of US military power. The balance has gone wrong lately.

The only face of America the world sees now is the one of military power. Today free people are not looking to America for guidance in constructing another world order. Today their greatest fear is America’s overweening involvement in it. This is certainly not America’s finest hour.

Charles De Gaulle once said, “France was never her true self unless she was engaged in a great enterprise”. In the teeth of opposition, France upheld the UN system when it came under attack and resisted heavy-handed American attempts to railroad the world into supporting a totally unjust, unprovoked, unwarranted war. Today France is her true self and this is truly France’s finest hour. It is a great tragedy that Pakistan finds itself on the wrong side of the dividing line today.