Editorial: Few signals to soothe a fretful world

Opinion

Twelve months ago, there was reason to look forward to 2004 with guarded optimism. The prospect of a changing of the guard at the White House was complemented by an expectation that greater international input would lead to an unravelling of the Iraq conundrum and the more effective pursuit of the war on terrorism. A year on, those hopes have largely turned to dust. President George W. Bush won a second term with something to spare, and the international community was soon left in no doubt that his strident unilateralism was not about to soften.

The American election was undoubtedly the pivotal event of the year. Democrat challenger John Kerry had the rest of the world's vote. His support for a more multilateralist approach to global affairs was reassuring, as was his pledge to whip the United States economy into shape. But his wooden personality did not jell with Americans, and Republicans were able to make great play of his occasional flip-flops, and his secular liberalism. Never mind that Iraq had proved a gross error of judgment, and that the weapons of mass destruction used to justify the invasion were found to be non-existent. Americans saw Mr Bush as a strong and resolute leader and, as is the custom in times of war, re-elected the incumbent.

There was an immediate impact in Iraq, where the election cleared the way for an assault on the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah. Any suggestion that the Iraq Government installed by the US in mid-year had any influence disappeared with this ill-conceived venture. Long before Fallujah had been taken most of the insurgents had slipped away, ready to be increasingly assertive elsewhere. And with every attack, the possibility of holding meaningful elections in Iraq faded.

Equally, there was little progress in the war on terrorism. Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda leader, seemed as far from capture as ever, and continued alternatively to chide and threaten the West. Some terrorist attacks were thwarted but enough came to fruition in the likes of Jakarta and Jeddah to suggest that al Qaeda cells were still gaining sustenance from fundamentalist Muslims' fear of modernisation - and from the ongoing US blundering.

There was, however, cause for hope that the long-running violence between Israel and the Palestinians in Gaza and on the West Bank could be brought to an end. The death of Yasser Arafat in November provided the chance for the tit-for-tat cycle to be broken and for Washington to again take the lead in the quest for peace. It remains to be seen whether the opportunity will be seized, or whether a splintered or more radical Palestinian camp will sponsor even greater violence.

The US snubbing of the United Nations' refusal to endorse the invasion of Iraq led the world body to try to reinvent itself. A high-level panel did not shy away from criticising the White House, while recommending the UN become more activist and committed and have a Security Council more representative of the global community. Yet no matter how reasonable the suggestions, and how valid the UN's legitimacy, they cut little ice in the White House. There can be no cause for optimism about the UN as long as the Bush Administration continues to regard it as little more than an annoyance.

Coincidentally, the UN's woes were echoed by those of another global body, the World Trade Organisation, even if its Doha negotiation round was rescued. Countries asserted their own interests, scrambling for the easier option of bilateral and zonal free-trade pacts. For New Zealand, this offered great promise, especially given its first-cab-off-the-rank status with China. So much so that it was easy to forget that the WTO offered far more in terms of fair, orderly and efficient trade. As, indeed, by and large do all international bodies that seek to bring form, function and integrity to an often distracted world. This was not a year of advance for them. Nor did its events soothe an already anxious world.