The recently concluded midterm elections in the United States of America did not produce any surprise. As expected for a long time, the American people have totally rejected President George W. Bush’s Iraq policy. Bush, indeed, has become a real “Lame Duck” president and how is he going to pull on for two long years would be a good question. Don Rumsfeld, the Defence Secretary in the Bush Cabinet has rightly quit and a new man has taken charge. It also seems they are thinking of giving a new twist to their Iraq policy. But, will it undo what has already been done? Can they bring back thousands of American youths who have been massacred to satisfy the whims of one man? Can they restore the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for no fault or crime, only to fulfil the interest of an alien power? Indeed, Saddam Hussein might have murdered thousands of Iraqis and now has been meted out a death penalty. But what kind of penalty is the person going to get who has been the cause of such a huge massacre of innocent human lives? And the deaths and destructions continue unabated. Pray, who is going to judge who is accountable for this. Of course, history will be the judge and what kind of place will be reserved for him in history is difficult to imagine at the moment. But we can say this much for sure that Bush’s Iraq policy has not only devastated Iraq and the Iraqis but alienated the world Muslim community -- more than one fifth of the world population, and bought the threat of persisting terrorism against America and the Americans for a long time to come.

* * *

If Bush’s Iraq policy has proved to be a big folly, his Nepal policy seems to be a big enigma. Since the United States , being the only super power, defender of democracy, benefactor to all poor countries of Asia and Africa and a dependable friend who would help to preserve their integrity, Nepalis too were lolling under the same impression. But when it started to follow India ’s lead as far Nepal ’s affairs were concerned, Nepalis seem to have received shocks that have awakened them from their deep sleep. To think that the U.S. is not fully aware of India ’s attitude towards Nepal and other smaller countries of south Asia would be nothing but naïve. The way the U.S. gave a blind eye to India ’s double standard regarding the Nepali Maoists have made all Nepalis really concerned for their safety and survival. The U.S. might have its axe to grind with Indian cooperation. But that does not mean it should desert smaller countries of the world to be bullied by bigger and powerful neighbors. The way the U.S. ambassadors accredited to Nepal keep on hopping over to New Delhi to take instructions from the Indian statesmen makes us wonder whether the U.S. ambassador in New Delhi is only a showpiece. And we would not like to say anything about the U.N. diplomats doing the same as we think, the U.N. is only an extension of the U.S. Because we remember how a former U.S. Secretary of State had reprimanded the U.N. Secretary General not to forget from where he got his pay check. As such, if the smaller nations cannot rely on the lone super power to defend their rights and privileges, they have to make their own arrangements. And what can the poor smaller nations do? Here I would like to relate a small anecdote of my college days: When a professor recommended to us a certain book to read he used to say, “if you can’t buy it, beg, borrow or steal.” And this dictum applies to all smaller countries to preserve their integrity. Since the only dependable weapon that can be used as deterrent is a nuclear bomb and since they cannot make it, they have to beg, borrow or steal. This is sure to proliferate the nuclear weapons enhancing the possibilities of a nuclear conflagration in the world. If the super power wants to avoid that situation, it cannot sacrifice smaller and weaker nations at the altar of its own interests. Better learn the lesson quick.