2004: could it mark a turn-around?

When the Cold War ended in 1991, it was widely believed that the unipolar world that followed would usher in a new era of peace. This belief (or wishful thinking?) proved to be wrong.

With no countervailing force to neutralize America's drive to dominate the world, the US emerged as the harbinger of war. This was established conclusively in Afghanistan in 2001 and in Iraq in 2003.

The outgoing year 2004, one of the most terrible ones in terms of violence and killings worldwide, could eventually go down in history as the year when the tide began to turn. A new pattern appears to be emerging in the international system.

The outcome of this may not necessarily be a lowering of violence in the immediate future. But it is probable that America may no longer be able to bulldoze its way into any country as the self-proclaimed gendarmerie of the world. The new trend began to manifest itself in several ways, though not always desirable.

One was the unprecedented rise in violence and terrorism as a reaction to America's ham handed policies around the globe. Although President Bush promised to make the post-9/11 world a safer place, the mindless manner in which he went about doing that provoked anger and invited more violence than before.

Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine became theatres of endemic bloodletting and thousands of people (100,000 in Iraq alone since the Americans entered the country) were killed in the war, in suicide attacks, bombings and ambushes. American soldiers also lost their lives - in Iraq alone over a thousand of US troops were killed.

With violence escalating and hampering the political process, the United States was left without an exit strategy. Afghanistan was scheduled to hold an election in July but conditions were not at all conducive for an electoral exercise at the time. After two postponements, the polls were held in October.

Iraq, the country occupied by the US, has fared no better in terms of violence and terror. The transfer of power to an interim administration which was scheduled for June 30 was advanced and took place on the quiet to avoid any violence. It seems unlikely that any US administration would now venture out in a similar bellicose manner in any country as Mr Bush did in Iraq.

The world's sole superpower now knows that all its military might notwithstanding, it remains badly exposed to terrorist attacks if it fails to win the hearts and minds of the people it is attempting to subjugate by military means.

President Bush was reelected by a narrow and questionable margin - there were allegations of the voting machines being rigged - but voices were raised in America itself questioning the Republican government's unilateralist Iraq policy.

How many Americans will put up with such blatant acts of aggression once again, one wonders. Another major constraint in the rise of American power could be the expansion of the European Union which admitted 10 new members into its fold in May 2004 in what was described as the "year's most memorable European moment".

Although most of the East European states are not as highly developed as their West European partners, the EU is expected to emerge as a political force to reckon with. With 450 million people sharing a common market and eventually a common currency, the EU is the largest economic bloc in the world.

With a full-time president and foreign minister, the Union also has clout - both political and economic - even today when the Euro has not been universally introduced in all the member countries. In 2004, the Euro surged to overtake the dollar creating quite a stir in the currency market.

America has faced another potential challenger - China. In 2004 it appeared that the People's Republic was set to emerge as a counterweight to American power.

With its annual economic growth rate again touching the nine per cent mark, China was poised to climb to the ranks of the developed states. More importantly this growth has enhanced China's influence in the commodity market and the multilateral organizations.

These were straws in the wind indicating future trends. But something which has been firmly established and was reinforced during 2004 was democracy with its underpinning of the electoral process.

Sixty-eight elections were held during the year - some of them had far-reaching implications not only for the domestic politics of the country where the people voted but also for international relations.

In Spain the government of Jose Maria Aznar, a staunch supporter of President Bush's adventure in Iraq, was booted out in March, and the new government pulled out Spanish forces from the so-called coalition forces in Iraq.

Another major upset came in India where the BJP of Atal Behari Vajpayee lost its hold on power when the Congress under Sonia Gandhi made a come-back in the Lok Sabha and formed a coalition government with the communist parties and others and Dr Manmohan Singh as the prime minister.

The most dramatic election was the one held in Ukraine. The incumbent Viktor Yanukovich's victory was rejected by the opposition which, with outside pressure, forced a re-election that was won hands down by the opposition candidate, Viktor Yushchenko.

Even the American elections were not without their drama with the final results hanging by a thread in Ohio. It was when John Kerry accepted defeat that the world accepted that George Bush was to remain in the White House. Paradoxically, the United States' insistence on democracy and elections could in the long run strengthen the hands of its critics in the Third World.

A major event of the year was the death of Yasser Arafat, the Palestinian leader who had led his people's struggle for a homeland in Palestine. For three years after the second Intifada began, Arafat had been confined to his Ramallah headquarters.

The US, which has played a key role in promoting Israeli intransigence, believed that with Arafat gone it would be easier to break the deadlock that characterizes Palestine-Israel relations. But again the elections which will take place early next year to enable the Palestinians to choose Arafat's successor may throw up a younger and more militant leader to be at the helm.

One positive development in South Asia, which may be attributed to an American role behind the scene, is the peace process that has been launched between India and Pakistan.

After the Indian prime minister attended the Saarc summit in Islamabad in January the two countries began a series of meetings on issues which have divided them, including the dispute on Kashmir.

No tangible result had emerged after the first round of talks had ended and the second round begun. But the mere fact that the war of words between them had been toned down and relations between the two countries were more cordial than they were for a long time, generated a measure of hope and confidence.

It may seem a pipe dream at the moment, but were India and Pakistan to join hands at some stage, they could neutralize America's clout in South Asia. But for that we will have to wait for a few more years.

Meanwhile, the earthquake in the Indian Ocean and the tsunamis it caused have led to the loss of well over 100,000 lives just a few days before the year ends. It was a traumatic event, but one may ask: was it more painful than the man-inflicted killings which went on throughout the year in many parts of the world?